Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. During past consideration of this issue, the majority of Congress determined that energy consumed at the point of use can be measured, projected and extrapolated with greater accuracy than data based on subjective estimates of externalities, such as emissions, and ``source energy.'' This determination is clearly reflected in the authorizing statute, 42 USCS Section 6291, which defines ``energy use'' as ``the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, determined in accordance with test procedures under section 323 (42USCS Sec. 6293).'' Any substantive change in existing law and policy should only be undertaken after careful consideration by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. With respect to the Federal Energy Management Program, another program potentially affected by this language, 42 USCS 8253 and Executive Orders 12759 and 12902, which relate to improvement in energy efficiency in federal buildings, stating that ``each agency shall apply energy conservation measures to, and shall improve the design for the construction of, its Federal buildings in use during the fiscal year 1995 is at least 10 percent less that the energy consumption per gross square foot of its Federal buildings in use during the fiscal year 1985. . . .'' The June 1996 policy statement of the Federal Intergency Energy Policy Committee interprets these authorities as encouraging cost- effective energy projects that results in ``operational cost savings,'' regardless of whether that consumption is measured on a site basis or a source basis. While this allows the goal of reduced energy consumption to be demonstrated by source or site analysis, saving taxpayer dollars is retained as its primary criteria for projects. A change to consideration of externalities and ``source energy efficiency'' over direct cost savings would be a major change that should also be undertaken only after thorough analysis of its impact by the authorizing committee. I understand the concern that the Department could improve the analytical methods that are used to calculate ``source'' energy efficiency, which would give consideration to the full panoply of costs involved in using various appliances and making other energy efficiency decisions. Under the authorizing statute, the Department may make an effort to reduce the subjectivity involved in making the estimates necessary to make ``source energy'' calculations. This work can be taken into account as the appropriate authorizing committees consider changes in our existing national policy. Until that time, the existing statutes are the law of the land. The American Fisheries Act

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to further clarify that the language in the legislative report that accompanied S. 2237 with respect to energy efficiency codes and standards was not intended to conflict with existing laws. This issue was debated thoroughly when the Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in 1975, and again in the debate over the 1992 Energy Policy Act. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from seven of my colleagues expressing concern over this language.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my good friend from New York, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator D'Amato, is correct. I have introduced a bill, S. 2537, to amend the Export-Import Bank's environmental provisions. The bill does two things. First, it directs the Ex-Im Bank to negotiate a multi-lateral agreement with the export financing agencies of all G-7 countries to address environmentally sensitive development overseas. Second, until such agreement is reached, my legislation would ensure that U.S. companies have access to Ex-Im Bank financing of overseas projects where other G-7 countries are providing or have indicated an intent to provide financing to the project in question without conditioning such assistance on environmental policies or procedures. The net effect of this law is to impose unilateral sanctions on U.S. companies in the name of the environment. I had intended to discuss this legislation as part of Senate action on trade issues, because the issue here is trade and competition. This year, however, trade legislation may only be adopted as part of the omnibus spending bill, or not at all.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of the Senator form New York about this legislation, particularly because he is chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Export-Import Bank. And I agree that this matter is so important that it deserves the attention of the full Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Is the Senator saying that when the Senate reconvenes for the 106th session, the Chairman will schedule a hearing on my legislation at the earliest possible convenience?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my good friend from New York. As a result of his commitment on hearings. I will not attempt to include my Ex-Im legislation in the omnibus spending bill. I will look forward to working with the Chairman next year to address this important issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed its reports on H.R. 4079, to authorize the construction of temperature control devices at Folsom Dam in California, and H.R. 3687, the Canadian River Prepayment Act, the analyses from the Congressional Budget Office were not available. Those analyses have now been received. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record for the advice of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today is a historic day for the Congress, the National Park Service and the American people. After two years of intense negotiations, hearings from coast to coast, and a great deal of hard work I am pleased to inform my colleagues that we have National Park Service Reform. More importantly, after eight years of disagreement, and as part of the National Park Service reform package, we have achieved victory; we have come together in true bi-partisan fashion, and we have reformed the management and administration of concession operations in the National Park Service System. Under this legislation, and in addition to concession reform, we have provided the National Park Service with increased opportunities, in cooperation with colleges and universities, to conduct scientific research in our parks so that in future years resource management decisions can be based more on sound science as opposed to emotion and guess work. We direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive training program for employees in all professional careers in the work force of the National Park Service to ensure that personnel have the best, up-to-date knowledge, skills and abilities with which to manage, interpret and protect the resources of the National Park System. As we all know the management and administration of parks is becoming more complex. We require managers who are fully prepared to take on the challenges that the next century will offer. The Secretary is directed to develop a training program which will ensure that future park managers will come from the cream of the crop and will be fully prepared to assume the responsibilities that management and administration of multiple park programs will demand. We have established procedures for the establishment of new units of the National Park System to ensure that only those areas of truly national significance are authorized. Mr. President, the original bill passed by the Senate contained new fee authorities which would have allowed the actual users of the System to shoulder more of the responsibility to decrease the $8 billion dollar back-log in maintenance and infrastructure repair needed in our parks. Unfortunately, the other Body decided to delete these provisions from this legislative package. I regret this decision; however, I want you to know that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is going to address the fee systems for all of the agencies under our jurisdiction early in the next Congress. There are needs to be met and problems to be resolved in this specific arena. Senator Thomas came up with a park passport and stamp as an entrance pass to our National Parks. The winning design of the stamp will be through a competitive process each year, a similar process to the popular Duck Stamp that we are all familiar with. It's a great marketing tool and should increase revenues. Along that same line we are directing the National Park Foundation to assist other park friends groups. The Foundation possesses a great deal of expertise in fund raising and philanthropic activities. Sharing that expertise will benefit hundreds of parks across this Nation. We also direct the Secretary and provide him the authority to lease unused Park Service buildings and enter into expanded cooperative agreements in the hope that the private sector will take advantage of occupying and maintaining some of these unused structures, thereby off- setting expenditures by the Service. Mr. President, Senator Thomas, Senator Bumpers, Senator Bennett, and Secretary Babbitt entered into negotiations on concession reform. The end result is before you today. All of these gentlemen deserve our congratulations and thanks for the time and energy each put into the effort. This bill is a direct result of discussions amongst the House and Senate Committees, representatives of the concession industry, and other interest groups. It reflects, I believe, a fair and just resolution of some issues about which there is legitimate disagreement. The recent amendment offered by Representative Miller alters the terms of that agreement to some degree, but it remains a piece of legislation I can still support and endorse. However, I do think the amendment does give rise to a need for some clarification. Protection of the existing possessory interests of concessioners is an important element of this legislation. Possessory interest is a significant and valuable right. It reflects the capital investment of the concessioner. It was one of the foundations on which the 1965 Concessions Act was built and it can not be simply eliminated. The concessioners are entitled to the protections which the 1965 Act promised. For those reasons I think we must make clear what the Miller amendment does not do. In authorizing the Secretary to, in the future, alter the treatment of possessory interests, it does not empower him to do what Congress has specifically chosen not to do, by which I mean deny those concessioners the value of their existing possessory interest. Regardless of what the Secretary may ultimately decide, those existing possessory interest will remain a valuable and legally protected right for which concessioners must be compensated. They will remain entitled to see their investment protected and to receive the benefit of their bargain. Mr. President, on another point, we have just received a GAO study that tells us that many of our existing concession facilities are below standard and deteriorating. Visitors to our parks should not expect to stay in a facility that cannot pass the minimum requirements that apply to those hotels and motels on the borders of our parks. On that note, and as I have previously stated the negotiations that lead to this compromise were difficult to say the least. Each had to come across the table, no one got everything they wanted except the American people, and they got a lot. The provisions of this compromise mean that we will have the expertise of the private sector to assist and advise the National Park Service in the management and administration of concession operations. I am confident that under this scenario concession operations have no where to go but to produce better quality services. The private sector will be more than glad to provide major investments in new and existing facilities because they are able to maintain a financial interest in the properties. There is a great incentive for the operators to maintain their facilities and infrastructure to the highest standards possible. If they don't, the provisions provide for a decrease in the dollar amount of interest they are entitled to receive. Finally, concession operators will be paying more in fees which go back to the parks. Mr. President, I personally want to thank Senator Thomas for the extreme effort that he has put forth in this endeavor. In my years in the Senate I have never seen a Senator work harder on this contentious issue. He has done the impossible. And, last but not least, I want to say thank you to the Committee staff, for the hard work, the lost weekends, the evenings and for the great work.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise to speak in support of the passage of H.R. 2000, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to make certain clarifications to the land bank protection provisions, and for other purposes, and I hope it will be sent on its way to the President for his signature. A measure similar to H.R. 2000 was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on September 24, of last year. S. 967 contained the majority of the provisions in H.R. 2000. One of the most important provisions in H.R. 2000 is section 6 which implements a land exchange with the Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation organized under the authority of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This exchange, originally authorized in 1991, by P.L. 102-172, would provide for the United States to acquire more than 200,000 acres of Calista and village corporation lands and interests in lands within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Alaska. The Refuge serves as an important habitat and as a breeding and nesting ground for a variety of fish and wildlife, including numerous species of migratory birds and waterfowl. As a result, the Calista exchange will enhance the conservation and protection of these vital habitats and thereby further the purpose of ANCSA and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. In addition to conservation benefits, this exchange will also render much needed economic benefit to the Yupik Eskimo people of southwestern Alaska. The Calista region is burdened by some of the harshest economic and social conditions in the Nation. As a result of this exchange, the Calista Corporation will be better able to make the kind of investments that will improve the region's economy and the lives of the Yupik people. In this regard, this provision furthers and carries out the underlying purposes of ANCSA. This provision is, in part, the result of discussions by the various interested parties. As a result of those discussions, a number of modifications were made to the original package of lands offered for exchange. Mr. President, it is past time to move forward with this exchange. Another section of this bill I wanted to comment on is a provision that was not included in the technical amendments I introduced but that was added in the House. Section 12 of this bill expressly authorizes and confirms the original intent of ANCSA in 1971: that ANCSA corporations could provide health, education and welfare benefits for Alaska Natives, including those persons who were their shareholders. This provision is necessary because one recent Alaska Supreme Court case has concluded that an ANCSA corporation had liability to its shareholders under Alaska state law for a cash payment benefits program. The program at issue in that case was limited to the persons reached a certain age. Given the narrowness of this program, it was not consistent with the intent of ANCSA. Section 12 of this bill is not intended to alter the result in that case, or otherwise, with regard to that specific benefit program. However, in reaching its decision under Alaska state law, the court used language which suggests that any ANCSA corporate benefits program which does not provide equal pro rata benefits to all shareholders simultaneously is invalid. Such a conclusion goes too far and is inconsistent with the intent behind ANCSA. Thus, section 12 of this bill is intended to make clear that in evaluating the legality of health, education and welfare programs maintained by ANCSA corporations, federal law (ANCSA) is to preempt Alaska state law. Such programs have been established in good faith to provide health, education and/or welfare benefits for the ANCSA corporations' shareholders or their family members. To be valid under ANCSA, it is not necessary that benefits be provided on an equal pro rata basis simultaneously to all shareholders, or even that the program recipients be shareholders as long as they are family members of shareholders. Examples of the type of programs authorized include: scholarships, cultural activities, shareholder employment opportunities and related financial assistance, funeral benefits, meals for the elderly and other elders benefits including cash payments, and medical programs. I believe these programs represent an important part of the ANCSA corporations, and I hope they will continue long into the future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as Americans prepare to celebrate Columbus Day, I notice that there are other celebrations going on around Washington, including ``National Day'' celebrations in Chinatown. October 10, 1998 marks the 87th anniversary of the founding of modern China. This is a very special day for Chinese people around the world, and especially in Taiwan where October 10 is celebrated as National Day in the Republic of China on Taiwan. Dr. Sun Yat-sen is the father of modern China, and is widely regarded and revered both in mainland China and in Taiwan. On October 10, 1911, Dr. Sun's Revolutionary Alliance succeeded in putting an end to imperial rule in China, a date which also marked the formal planting of the seeds of democracy which continue to flourish in Taiwan today. People often speculate as to the real reasons for the ``Taiwan Miracle'' and how Taiwan continues to defy the odds today; how this island nation continues to expand economically when nations all around her are at an economic standstill or contracting; and they speculate as to how Taiwan not only survives politically, but how she has evolved into such a strong democracy despite the pressures by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to isolate her from the international community. While there is no easy answer to this question, Taiwan is a flourishing and successful society in every sense of the word, and is a source of optimism in an increasingly uncertain world. In this light, it gives me particularly great pleasure to wish everyone on Taiwan, and Chinese people around the world, a very special October 10 National Day. And so to all of you, congratulations.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today will require the Secretary of the Interior to report on what he has done, or not done, to implement the requirements of sections 1307 and 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Those provisions sought to mitigate the effect of the designation of over 100 million acres of land in Alaska for permanent preservation on the Alaska Natives who have lived in the areas for centuries. Those provisions required the Secretary to allow those who were already providing visitor services to continue to provide such services and also provided a preference in hiring at those conservation units for local residents. Those provisions were intended to accomplish several objectives. First and foremost, they were designed to ensure that local residents who would assume the costs attendant to the establishment of these conservation units as a result of future limitations on economic opportunities received some of the benefits from whatever jobs were created. The provisions also ensured that the rich history and knowledge of the area that the local native population possessed was made available to visitors. For a change, Washington could learn from those in the surrounding communities. There would also be an incidental benefit from hiring local residents to the budget of the National Park Service since they would not have to pay employees to relocate to Alaska. Mr. President, while speaking to the issue of benefits, I have been told by several of the residents of Kotzebue that they have assisted in the rescue of Park Service personnel on a number of occasions. It makes little sense to me to bring someone to the Northwest parks from the lower forty-eight who is unfamiliar with the rugged terrain and treacherous weather. It makes better sense to hire an individual who stands little chance of getting lost or stranded. This is not a new concept. In various other units of the National Park System we have made provisions to take advantage of local communities, especially where the resource has particular historic or religious significance. At Zuni-Cibola Historical Park, for example, section 4 of Public Law 100-567 specifically authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with the Zuni Tribe and individual tribal members to provide training for the interpretation, management, protection, and preservation of archaeological and historical properties and in the provision of public services on the Zuni Indian Reservation to accomplish the purposes for which that unit of the Park System was established. At the National Park of American Samoa, the Secretary has been directed to establish a program to train native American Samoan personnel to function as professional park service employees and to provide services to visitors and operate and maintain park facilities. The law establishing the park also provided a preference for the hiring of local Samoans both as employees and under any contract. The general management plan for the park is to be developed in cooperation with the Governor of American Samoa. It is also conceivable, under the legislation, that after fifty years, sole authority to administer the park could be turned over to the Governor of American Samoa from the Secretary. There are other examples, but I think the time is long overdue for this philosophy to be realized at conservation units in Alaska. The Department of the Interior, in my view, has been dragging its feet and has failed to take advantage of the rich human resources present in the Alaska Native communities that lie in proximity to National Parks and Refuges. These units are remarkable and this Nation is not well served when the Secretary fails to take advantage of the local population. In particular, the four northwest Alaska units of the National Park System would be a good place for the Secretary to begin complying with section 1307 and 1308 of ANILCA and start contracting with the local people for the management of these park units. Bering Land Bridge National Preserve is a remnant of the land bridge that connected Asia with North America more than 13,000 years ago. The land bridge itself is now overlain by the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea. During the glacial epoch, this area was part of a migration route for people, animals, and plants whenever ocean levels fell enough to expose the land bridge. Scientists find it one of the most likely regions where prehistoric Asian hunters entered the New World. Today Eskimos from neighboring villages pursue subsistence lifestyles and manage their reindeer herds in and around the preserve. Some 112 migratory bird species may be seen in the Preserve, along with occasional seals, walrus, and whales. Grizzly bears, fox, wolf, and moose also inhabit the Preserve. Other interesting features are rimless volcanoes called Maar craters, Serpentine Hot Springs, and seabird colonies at Sullivan Bluffs. Cape Krusenstern National Monument is comprised of 659,807 acres of land and water--a coastal plain dotted with sizable lagoons and backed by gently rolling, limestone hills. The Cape Krusenstern area has been designated an Archeological District in the National Register of Historic Places, and a National Historic Landmark. The core of the archeologic district is made up of approximately 114 marine beach ridges. These beach ridges, formed of gravel deposited by major storms and regular wind and wave action, record in horizontal succession the major cultural periods of the last 4,500 years. The prehistoric inhabitants of northwest Alaska occupied the cape seasonally to hunt marine mammals, especially seals. As new beach ridges were formed, camps were made on the ridges closest to the water. Thus, over centuries, a chronological horizontal stratigraphy was laid down in which the oldest cultural remains were found on the beach ridges farthest from the ocean. The discoveries made at Cape Krusenstern National Monument provided a definite, datable outline of cultural succession and development in northwest Alaska. The park contains approximately 1,726,500 acres of federal lands and encompasses a nearly enclosed mountain basin in the middle section of the Kobuk River in the Northwest Alaska Areas. Trees approach their northern limit in the Kobuk Valley, where forest and tundra meet. Today's dry, cold climate of the Kobuk Valley still approximates that of late Pleistocene times, supporting a remnant flora once covering the vast Arctic steppe tundra bridging Alaska and Asia. Sand created by the grinding of glaciers has been carried to the Kobuk Valley by winds and water. The great Kobuk Sand Dunes--25 square miles of shifting dunes-- is the largest active dune field in the arctic latitudes. Native people have lived in the Kobuk Valley for at least 12,500 years. This human use is best recorded at the extensive archeological sites at Onion Portage. The Kobuk Valley remains an important area for traditional subsistence harvest of caribou, moose, bears, fish, waterfowl, and many edible and medicinal plants. The slow-moving, gentle Kobuk River is tremendous for fishing and canoeing or kayaking. Noatak National Preserve lies in northwestern Alaska, in the western Brooks Range, and encompasses more than 250 miles of the Noatak River. The preserve protects the largest untouched mountain-ringed river basin in the United States. The river basin provides an outstanding resource for scientific research, environmental education, and subsistence and recreational opportunities. Above the Arctic Circle, the Noatak River flows from glacial melt atop Mount Igikpak in the Brooks Range out to Kotzebue Sound. Along its 425-mile course, the river has carved out the Grand Canyon of the Noatak. The preserve is in a transition zone between the northern coniferous forests and tundra biomes. The river basin contains most types of arctic habitat, as well as one of the finest arrays of flora and fauna. Among the Preserve's large mammals are brown bears, moose, caribou, wolves, lynx, and Dall sheep. Birdlife also is plentiful in the area because of the migrations from Asia and the tip of South America. The Noatak River supports arctic char, whitefish, grayling, and salmon and is an important resource for fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. Mr. President, these are the human and natural resources of Northwest Alaska. This legislation will direct the Secretary to finally bring the two together for the benefit of both Alaska Natives and the nation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am both throwing down a gauntlet and laying down a marker on this subject of fishing in Glacier Bay. Native Alaskans have used Glacier Bay to obtain fish and other foodstuffs essential to them for many thousands of years, and not long after the United States acquired Alaska, commercial fishing started there also. In all the time since, fishing has caused absolutely no harm to the values that make this area one of America's premier national parks. Parts of Glacier Bay were declared as a national monument in 1925, to promote the study of flora, fauna and geology of post-glacial terrain. Glacier Bay was ideal for this purpose. When visited by Capt. George Vancouver in the late 18th century it was closed by a geologically recent glacial advance, but by the time John Muir visited in the 1880's, Native fishermen had resumed their age-old practice of fishing here every summer. In 1939, the national monument was expanded. In 1980, it was expanded again, and most of it was redesignated as a national park. Mr. President, just as the Federal Government spoke with a ``forked tongue'' to Native Americans throughout much of our history, so it has spoken to the Tlingits and to the other local residents who rely on Glacier Bay for their livelihoods and for their sustenance. Throughout the history of government proclamations, local Natives and commercial fishermen have been promised that their activities would be respected-- yet a few years ago, the government decided to ignore its promises and began a concerted effort to banish both commercial and subsistence fishing. It has been aided and abetted by some of the sleaziest tactics I have ever seen--a network of half-truths and outright lies about the fisheries, the fishermen, and about our efforts to save them. Mr. President, this is just plain wrong. It is an affront to every American who believes the government's promises should be worth something, and there are still a few of us left, despite everything. I had hopes that reasonable people could work this issue out. Indeed, earlier this year I delayed further action on my own efforts to craft compromise legislation in order to allow additional time to the fishermen, State of Alaska representatives and others who have been trying to develop a consensus. Unfotunately, these efforts have been stymied by the refusal of the national environmental organizations to agree to fair treatment of these historical users. For that reason, I supported putting a one-year regulatory moratorium into the Interior appropriation, so as to allow additional time to work on this issue at the local level. Regrettably, the Department of the Interior and its allies are not willing to continue working toward a consensus. Instead, they refused to accept the moratorium language, and insisted on going forward with regulations to put the fishermen out of business. There is a real inconsistency here; in the same bays and inlets where they insist fishing is an unacceptable commercial activity, they are only too happy to allow tour vessels with thousands of visitors. Soon, perhaps within hours, perhaps within a few days, we will pass an omnibus appropriation measure that makes one of Washington's insider ``deals'' on this issue. Under the deal, a minimum payment will be made to get some fishermen to disappear altogether, and a handful of others will be told that they will be allowed to fish, but that their current right to sell or bequeath their fishing permits to their children has just evaporated forever. I repeat, Mr. President, what is happening here is just plain wrong. For that reason, I am today offering an amendment to my earlier bill. I will introduce another such a bill in January of next year, and In intend to introduce such a bill every January hereafter until justice is done. I will also welcome the assistance of the State of Alaska in asserting its right of jurisdiction over the management of these fisheries. Come what may, I will not stand by and allow these existing small fishing operators to be lost in Glacier Bay.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today will require the Secretary of the Interior to report on what he has done, or not done, to implement the requirements of sections 1307 and 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Those provisions sought to mitigate the effect of the designation of over 100 million acres of land in Alaska for permanent preservation on the Alaska Natives who have lived in the areas for centuries. Those provisions required the Secretary to allow those who were already providing visitor services to continue to provide such services and also provided a preference in hiring at those conservation units for local residents. Those provisions were intended to accomplish several objectives. First and foremost, they were designed to ensure that local residents who would assume the costs attendant to the establishment of these conservation units as a result of future limitations on economic opportunities received some of the benefits from whatever jobs were created. The provisions also ensured that the rich history and knowledge of the area that the local native population possessed was made available to visitors. For a change, Washington could learn from those in the surrounding communities. There would also be an incidental benefit from hiring local residents to the budget of the National Park Service since they would not have to pay employees to relocate to Alaska. Mr. President, while speaking to the issue of benefits, I have been told by several of the residents of Kotzebue that they have assisted in the rescue of Park Service personnel on a number of occasions. It makes little sense to me to bring someone to the Northwest parks from the lower forty-eight who is unfamiliar with the rugged terrain and treacherous weather. It makes better sense to hire an individual who stands little chance of getting lost or stranded. This is not a new concept. In various other units of the National Park System we have made provisions to take advantage of local communities, especially where the resource has particular historic or religious significance. At Zuni-Cibola Historical Park, for example, section 4 of Public Law 100-567 specifically authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with the Zuni Tribe and individual tribal members to provide training for the interpretation, management, protection, and preservation of archaeological and historical properties and in the provision of public services on the Zuni Indian Reservation to accomplish the purposes for which that unit of the Park System was established. At the National Park of American Samoa, the Secretary has been directed to establish a program to train native American Samoan personnel to function as professional park service employees and to provide services to visitors and operate and maintain park facilities. The law establishing the park also provided a preference for the hiring of local Samoans both as employees and under any contract. The general management plan for the park is to be developed in cooperation with the Governor of American Samoa. It is also conceivable, under the legislation, that after fifty years, sole authority to administer the park could be turned over to the Governor of American Samoa from the Secretary. There are other examples, but I think the time is long overdue for this philosophy to be realized at conservation units in Alaska. The Department of the Interior, in my view, has been dragging its feet and has failed to take advantage of the rich human resources present in the Alaska Native communities that lie in proximity to National Parks and Refuges. These units are remarkable and this Nation is not well served when the Secretary fails to take advantage of the local population. In particular, the four northwest Alaska units of the National Park System would be a good place for the Secretary to begin complying with section 1307 and 1308 of ANILCA and start contracting with the local people for the management of these park units. Bering Land Bridge National Preserve is a remnant of the land bridge that connected Asia with North America more than 13,000 years ago. The land bridge itself is now overlain by the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea. During the glacial epoch, this area was part of a migration route for people, animals, and plants whenever ocean levels fell enough to expose the land bridge. Scientists find it one of the most likely regions where prehistoric Asian hunters entered the New World. Today Eskimos from neighboring villages pursue subsistence lifestyles and manage their reindeer herds in and around the preserve. Some 112 migratory bird species may be seen in the Preserve, along with occasional seals, walrus, and whales. Grizzly bears, fox, wolf, and moose also inhabit the Preserve. Other interesting features are rimless volcanoes called Maar craters, Serpentine Hot Springs, and seabird colonies at Sullivan Bluffs. Cape Krusenstern National Monument is comprised of 659,807 acres of land and water--a coastal plain dotted with sizable lagoons and backed by gently rolling, limestone hills. The Cape Krusenstern area has been designated an Archeological District in the National Register of Historic Places, and a National Historic Landmark. The core of the archeologic district is made up of approximately 114 marine beach ridges. These beach ridges, formed of gravel deposited by major storms and regular wind and wave action, record in horizontal succession the major cultural periods of the last 4,500 years. The prehistoric inhabitants of northwest Alaska occupied the cape seasonally to hunt marine mammals, especially seals. As new beach ridges were formed, camps were made on the ridges closest to the water. Thus, over centuries, a chronological horizontal stratigraphy was laid down in which the oldest cultural remains were found on the beach ridges farthest from the ocean. The discoveries made at Cape Krusenstern National Monument provided a definite, datable outline of cultural succession and development in northwest Alaska. The park contains approximately 1,726,500 acres of federal lands and encompasses a nearly enclosed mountain basin in the middle section of the Kobuk River in the Northwest Alaska Areas. Trees approach their northern limit in the Kobuk Valley, where forest and tundra meet. Today's dry, cold climate of the Kobuk Valley still approximates that of late Pleistocene times, supporting a remnant flora once covering the vast Arctic steppe tundra bridging Alaska and Asia. Sand created by the grinding of glaciers has been carried to the Kobuk Valley by winds and water. The great Kobuk Sand Dunes--25 square miles of shifting dunes-- is the largest active dune field in the arctic latitudes. Native people have lived in the Kobuk Valley for at least 12,500 years. This human use is best recorded at the extensive archeological sites at Onion Portage. The Kobuk Valley remains an important area for traditional subsistence harvest of caribou, moose, bears, fish, waterfowl, and many edible and medicinal plants. The slow-moving, gentle Kobuk River is tremendous for fishing and canoeing or kayaking. Noatak National Preserve lies in northwestern Alaska, in the western Brooks Range, and encompasses more than 250 miles of the Noatak River. The preserve protects the largest untouched mountain-ringed river basin in the United States. The river basin provides an outstanding resource for scientific research, environmental education, and subsistence and recreational opportunities. Above the Arctic Circle, the Noatak River flows from glacial melt atop Mount Igikpak in the Brooks Range out to Kotzebue Sound. Along its 425-mile course, the river has carved out the Grand Canyon of the Noatak. The preserve is in a transition zone between the northern coniferous forests and tundra biomes. The river basin contains most types of arctic habitat, as well as one of the finest arrays of flora and fauna. Among the Preserve's large mammals are brown bears, moose, caribou, wolves, lynx, and Dall sheep. Birdlife also is plentiful in the area because of the migrations from Asia and the tip of South America. The Noatak River supports arctic char, whitefish, grayling, and salmon and is an important resource for fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. Mr. President, these are the human and natural resources of Northwest Alaska. This legislation will direct the Secretary to finally bring the two together for the benefit of both Alaska Natives and the nation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that when Congress looks at ways to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil, it does so with the best science available. The legislation I introduce today would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic testing on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. This testing leaves no footprint. In fact, just last year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowed such testing to be done in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, declaring such testing would have no significant impact. It would have even less impact on the frozen tundra in ANWR. It is also a possibility that the oil industry would be willing to share in the cost of such testing. Let's at least find out what kind of resource we are talking about. Mr. President, I think it is important that we look at some of the history of his area and the testing that has occurred there. In May of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that a mean of 7.7 billion barrels of producible oil may reside in the 1002 Area of the Arctic Oil Reserve. This estimate was in stark contrast to a declaration by Secretary Babbitt in 1995 when he pronounced the Arctic Oil Reserve's oil possibilities to be about 898 million barrels. In the interest of looking at this amazing leap in the estimate of the AOR's producible oil, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, and invited the U.S. Geological Survey to participate. Three things rang clear at that hearing: First, while these estimates were the highest ever and proved the 1002 area of the AOR has the greatest potential of securing our Nation's energy needs--they were extremely conservative. For instance, these estimates were based on a minimum economic field size of 512 million barrels. When in practice the minimum economic field size in Alaska is much lower than that. Consider the following examples of current economic fields in Alaska: Northstar: 145 mm/bb (With a sub-sea pipeline) is deemed economic. Badami: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Liberty: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Sourdough: 100+ mm/bb (adjacent to Aor) is deemed economic. The second fact that rang clear is while these new estimates show a clearer picture of the Western portion of the AOR, much remains unclear about the oil and gas potential of the massive structures present in the Eastern portion. The USGS has slightly downgraded the potential of the Eastern portion because they do not have similar data that was available to them on the Western portion. Third, technology has increased so dramatically that we can now extract greater amounts of oil from wells with far less impact on the environment at a cost of 30 percent less than 10 years ago. Consider this, Mr. President: In June of 1994, Amerada Hess concluded the Northstar field in Alaska was uneconomic because development would exceed $1.2 billion and eventually sold the field to BP. Today, BP expects to begin production of that field's 145 million barrels of reserves in 2000. Estimated development costs: $350 million--a 70 percent reduction from just 4 years ago! Mr. President, all these factors point toward the logical conclusion that underlying the 1.5 million-acre oil reserve in Alaska lies greater reserves than recently estimated, and we need to confirm them with better science. Dr. Thomas J. Casadevall, acting director of the USGS, was very clear in his explanation that if the newer three dimensional (3-D) seismic data were available from the Arctic Oil Reserve, their high May estimates of producible oil could increase significantly. Casadevall explained that their new estimates, while supported by sound science and peer review, were still based on 2-D seismic tests done more than a decade ago. Kenneth A. Boyd, director, Division of Oil and Gas of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, likened the advance of the new testing to the difference between an x-ray and a CAT-scan. He said the available information from 2-D seismic as opposed to 3-D seismic is that the former produces a line of data while the latter produces a cube of data. The cube can be turned and examined from all sides and the geologic information proves invaluable for exploration. This data has revolutionized exploration and development of the North Slope of Alaska. Modern 3-D data provides enhanced and incredibly accurate imaging of potential subsurface reservoirs. This in turn reduces exploration and development risk, reduces the number of drilled wells, and in turn reduces both overall costs and environmental impacts. Of course there is little pressure to allow testing or exploration of the Coastal Plain with gas prices at a 30-year low. However, the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in 10 years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. It would take that same 10-year period to develop any oil production in AOR. It seems prudent to plan ahead to protect our future energy security. If the Nation were to be crunched in an energy crisis--like the Gulf war that would require the speedup of development; that development could impact the environment negatively because it would not have the benefit of thoughtful planning. I believe it is as criminal as stealing gold to refuse to acknowledge the potential for producible oil in the Coastal Plain of the AOR. If we don't know what the resource is, how can we protect it or make an informed decision about the use of the area? And how can those in this administration or the environmental community argue it is a bad idea to seek a greater understanding of these public lands? Particularly, when the Congress set aside the area under a special designation for future Congresses to determine whether it contains the quantities of oil that, if produced, would significantly enhance our national energy security. Mr. President, this legislation will also better enable the Secretary of the Interior to protect the Federal petroleum resources underlying the Coastal Plain. However, without knowing what those Federal resources are however, there is no way to protect them. Just last year a major oil discovery was announced on State lands immediately adjacent to the federal border. Production from this well could drain portions of the federal reserve without adequate compensation to the federal treasury. The Secretary has an obligation to protect the Federal resource underlying ANWR and this legislation will provide him the tools to do so. Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is being pushed by those of us in Congress who believe that if you are to make a decision about the best use of our public lands that you should do so with the benefit of the best available science. It is not, as Secretary Babbitt has suggested, an effort being pushed by the petroleum industry.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that when Congress looks at ways to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil, it does so with the best science available. The legislation I introduce today would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic testing on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. This testing leaves no footprint. In fact, just last year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowed such testing to be done in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, declaring such testing would have no significant impact. It would have even less impact on the frozen tundra in ANWR. It is also a possibility that the oil industry would be willing to share in the cost of such testing. Let's at least find out what kind of resource we are talking about. Mr. President, I think it is important that we look at some of the history of his area and the testing that has occurred there. In May of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that a mean of 7.7 billion barrels of producible oil may reside in the 1002 Area of the Arctic Oil Reserve. This estimate was in stark contrast to a declaration by Secretary Babbitt in 1995 when he pronounced the Arctic Oil Reserve's oil possibilities to be about 898 million barrels. In the interest of looking at this amazing leap in the estimate of the AOR's producible oil, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, and invited the U.S. Geological Survey to participate. Three things rang clear at that hearing: First, while these estimates were the highest ever and proved the 1002 area of the AOR has the greatest potential of securing our Nation's energy needs--they were extremely conservative. For instance, these estimates were based on a minimum economic field size of 512 million barrels. When in practice the minimum economic field size in Alaska is much lower than that. Consider the following examples of current economic fields in Alaska: Northstar: 145 mm/bb (With a sub-sea pipeline) is deemed economic. Badami: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Liberty: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Sourdough: 100+ mm/bb (adjacent to Aor) is deemed economic. The second fact that rang clear is while these new estimates show a clearer picture of the Western portion of the AOR, much remains unclear about the oil and gas potential of the massive structures present in the Eastern portion. The USGS has slightly downgraded the potential of the Eastern portion because they do not have similar data that was available to them on the Western portion. Third, technology has increased so dramatically that we can now extract greater amounts of oil from wells with far less impact on the environment at a cost of 30 percent less than 10 years ago. Consider this, Mr. President: In June of 1994, Amerada Hess concluded the Northstar field in Alaska was uneconomic because development would exceed $1.2 billion and eventually sold the field to BP. Today, BP expects to begin production of that field's 145 million barrels of reserves in 2000. Estimated development costs: $350 million--a 70 percent reduction from just 4 years ago! Mr. President, all these factors point toward the logical conclusion that underlying the 1.5 million-acre oil reserve in Alaska lies greater reserves than recently estimated, and we need to confirm them with better science. Dr. Thomas J. Casadevall, acting director of the USGS, was very clear in his explanation that if the newer three dimensional (3-D) seismic data were available from the Arctic Oil Reserve, their high May estimates of producible oil could increase significantly. Casadevall explained that their new estimates, while supported by sound science and peer review, were still based on 2-D seismic tests done more than a decade ago. Kenneth A. Boyd, director, Division of Oil and Gas of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, likened the advance of the new testing to the difference between an x-ray and a CAT-scan. He said the available information from 2-D seismic as opposed to 3-D seismic is that the former produces a line of data while the latter produces a cube of data. The cube can be turned and examined from all sides and the geologic information proves invaluable for exploration. This data has revolutionized exploration and development of the North Slope of Alaska. Modern 3-D data provides enhanced and incredibly accurate imaging of potential subsurface reservoirs. This in turn reduces exploration and development risk, reduces the number of drilled wells, and in turn reduces both overall costs and environmental impacts. Of course there is little pressure to allow testing or exploration of the Coastal Plain with gas prices at a 30-year low. However, the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in 10 years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. It would take that same 10-year period to develop any oil production in AOR. It seems prudent to plan ahead to protect our future energy security. If the Nation were to be crunched in an energy crisis--like the Gulf war that would require the speedup of development; that development could impact the environment negatively because it would not have the benefit of thoughtful planning. I believe it is as criminal as stealing gold to refuse to acknowledge the potential for producible oil in the Coastal Plain of the AOR. If we don't know what the resource is, how can we protect it or make an informed decision about the use of the area? And how can those in this administration or the environmental community argue it is a bad idea to seek a greater understanding of these public lands? Particularly, when the Congress set aside the area under a special designation for future Congresses to determine whether it contains the quantities of oil that, if produced, would significantly enhance our national energy security. Mr. President, this legislation will also better enable the Secretary of the Interior to protect the Federal petroleum resources underlying the Coastal Plain. However, without knowing what those Federal resources are however, there is no way to protect them. Just last year a major oil discovery was announced on State lands immediately adjacent to the federal border. Production from this well could drain portions of the federal reserve without adequate compensation to the federal treasury. The Secretary has an obligation to protect the Federal resource underlying ANWR and this legislation will provide him the tools to do so. Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is being pushed by those of us in Congress who believe that if you are to make a decision about the best use of our public lands that you should do so with the benefit of the best available science. It is not, as Secretary Babbitt has suggested, an effort being pushed by the petroleum industry.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered to grandfather existing taxes on Internet services. This amendment undermines the fundamental integrity of the underlying bill because all state and local taxing jurisdictions would not be under the exact same moratorium. It rewards those states and municipalities that raced to set up discriminatory taxes on Internet services and places them in a better position to raise revenue than those states that have chosen not to act. More importantly, it sets the precedent that some states, but not all states, can levy taxes that harm interstate commerce. This amendment makes the Internet Tax Moratorium a piece-meal moratorium, not a real moratorium. I ask my colleagues to consider why we are considering this Internet tax moratorium. As all of us recognize, the Internet is a massive global network that spans not only every state in the Union, but international borders. As the Commerce committee found, Internet access services are inherently a matter of interstate and foreign commerce within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress. In fact, it has been estimated that if the Congress does not make a policy decision regarding taxation of Internet services, more than 30,000 separate taxing jurisdictions within the United States could establish their own taxes on Internet transactions. Because of the chaos that would ensue, we have decided to place a halt on Internet taxes and allow a commission to study this issue and make recommendations to the Congress. Yet the amendment that the Senator from Oregon proposes would reward those jurisdictions that have already decided to tax Internet services. Why should we grandfather those jurisdictions? If it is appropriate for states and localities to impose taxes on Internet services than all states should be permitted to adopt such taxes. Alaska should be given that opportunity just as much as North Dakota and South Dakota. But under the Internet Tax Moratorium legislation, my state does not have that option but the Dakotas can continue their taxes because they adopted those taxes prior to this moratorium. And if it is not appropriate for states and localities to impose taxes on Internet services, than not states nor localities should be permitted to adopt these taxes. I believe this amendment is not only discriminatory but undermines the fundamental idea underlying this bill. As I noted earlier, the Internet is inherently about Interstate Commerce and we in Congress are about to make a decision that no local taxes should be imposed on Internet services until Congress receives the Commission's recommendations. I believe we should make this moratorium uniform, not piece-meal as the Senator from Oregon proposes. Otherwise, we are encouraging every state in the union to rush to the state legislature every time a new technology comes along and adopt a taxing scheme on the new technology, secure in the knowledge that should Congress decide to impose a moratorium on such a new tax, that state's taxes will be grandfathered. Moreover, there is no rational basis to grandfather these state and local taxes on what everyone agrees is interstate commerce. We have asked a Commission of experts to make recommendations regarding Internet taxes. Although I cannot pre-judge what the Commission will recommend, it is probable that the Commission will make three recommendations. It will make a decision that state and local taxation of Internet services are appropriate or inappropriate. It may decide that some taxes, such as taxes on ``pipeline'' services like Erols or value-added online services like America Online are appropriate but that taxes on interstate product sales on the Internet are inappropriate. What is certain is that the Commission will not recommend that the only Internet taxes that are appropriate are those that are levied by the states that are proposed to be grandfathered. That would make no sense and would probably be unconstitutional. For that reason alone, we should not permit this grandfather. Mr. President, one of the most important reasons I believe we should not grandfather any of the Internet taxes is because a decision we make on grandfathering will send a signal to our trading partners that if they adopt taxes on Internet commerce today, those taxes will likely be grandfathered if and when an international agreement on taxation of Internet commerce is reached in the future. Why shouldn't Brazil or Germany or Canada establish taxes today on Internet commerce and then claim that since these taxes were adopted prior to an international agreement, they should be grandfathered just like the United States grandfathered similar taxes? Mr. President, there is ample precedent for such a scenario. Many of the tariff and non-tariff barriers that the United States has confronted in the past 50 years have covered practices that were insulated by the original GATT grandfathering rules that were adopted more than 50 years ago. In fact, there have been a number of instances where our foreign trading partners have used the GATT grandfather clause to defend measures that would otherwise violate our GATT rights. A number of those involved foreign tax regimes. For example, the European Union relied on the GATT grandfather clause to defend their system of territorial taxation and income shifting rules that clearly constituted an illegal export subsidy. Similarly, Brazil used the grandfather clause to defend internal taxes of general application (i.e., sales taxes) that discriminated against goods imported from other GATT members. And Canada relied on the grandfather clause to defend its interprovincial restrictions on the sale of beer and other malt beverages, which included discriminatory charges on imports of competing products from the United States. Mr. President, the Internet as a means of communication and commerce is in its infancy. Commerce on the Internet is projected to grow by several thousand percent in the next five years. And who stands to benefit the most from that growth? Companies based in the United States will be the largest beneficiaries. I think there can be no doubt about that. We in the United States invented the Internet. We have been the first country to begin to exploit its benefits. We are leading the world in Internet commerce and the world is watching everything we do and trying to figure out how to prevent American domination of this new medium. One way to slow American domination of the Internet is for foreign countries to begin to establish taxing regimes on products and information generated from the United States. It is not hard to imagine our foreign trading partners developing taxing schemes designed to protect their domestic manufacturers from competition from more efficient American competitors selling in their country via the Internet. Nor is it difficult to imagine that some of the more repressive regimes in the world might want to come up with punitive access taxes that functionally prevent their citizens from reading American on-line newspapers and magazines. In the name of ``cultural sovereignty,'' I can imagine that some countries will adopt special taxing regimes to restrict access to Internet web pages that are in English. Mr. President, the precedent we set by grandfathering Internet taxes currently in place will be closely watched by our trading partners. They will follow our model because the United States has established all of the standards and protocols for the Internet. We should send a message to our trading partners that we will not grandfather any taxes on Internet commerce. Unless we do that, I fear that when our negotiators sit down and attempt to negotiate away discriminatory foreign taxes on Internet services, our foreign trading partners will use the grandfather model in this bill as a reason their taxing regime should be maintained in place. That is surely not the precedent we want to set. Finally, Mr. President, if we table this amendment we will ultimately not be voting on whether the moratorium should be three years or four years. The Senate has already spoken on this issue and if the grandfathering amendment is tabled, the Chairman of the Committee will certainly offer another amendment that we can accept that will extend the moratorium for four years. I move to table the amendment on grandfathering state Internet taxes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield all time back that's remaining on our side. It would be my intention when all time is yielded to ask for the yeas and nays. Excuse me, Mr. President. It would be my intention to move to table the pending amendment when all time is expired.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Landrieu and Lott, to introduce the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998. This important piece of legislation remedies a tremendous inequity in the distribution of revenues generated by offshore oil and gas production by directing that a portion of those moneys be allocated to coastal States and communities who shoulder the responsibility for energy development activity off their coastlines. It also provides a secure funding source for state recreation and wildlife conservation programs. The OCS Impact Assistance portion of this bill is similar to legislation I have introduced in prior Congresses and is an issue I have worked on for my entire Senate career. Title 1 of the bill directs that a portion of the revenues generated from oil and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--or OCS--be returned to coastal States and communities that share the burdens of exploration and production off their coastlines. Offshore oil and gas production generates $3 to $4 billion in revenues annually for the U.S. Treasury. Yet, unlike mineral receipts from onshore Federal lands, OCS oil and gas revenues are not directly returned to the States in which production occurs. This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that bear the responsibilities for offshore oil and gas production will share in its benefits. This legislation would, for the first time, share revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities with counties, parishes and boroughs--the local governmental entities most directly affected--and State governments. The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, including those States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs and directs that a portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS production occurs off their coasts. Coastal States and communities can use OCS Impact Assistance funds on everything from environmental programs, to coastal and marine conservation efforts, to new infrastructure requirements. In Alaska, local communities could use OCS funds to participate in the environmental planning process required by Federal laws before OCS development occurs. Other rural coastal communities in Alaska will use the money for sanitation improvements. While still others, like Unalakleet, will use the money to construct sea walls and breakwaters or beach rehabilitation--efforts which will combat the impacts of coastal erosion. This is money that will be used, day-in and day-out, to improve the quality of life on coastal State residents--money which comes from oil and gas production. Further, as the Federal OCS program expands in Alaska, this legislation will mean even more revenues to the State, boroughs and local communities. This is a true investment in the future. As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know all too well that offshore oil and gas production is a lightning rod for environmental groups who will go to great lengths to disparage an activity that is vital to the long-term energy and economic security of this country. These groups will likely say that this bill creates incentives for offshore oil and gas production because a factor in the distribution formula is a State's proximity to OCS production. Let us remember, this is an impact assistance bill--revenue sharing, if you will. States only will have impacts if they have production. The States with production, obviously, have greater needs and are most deserving of a larger share of OCS revenues. Mr. President, let me also remind everyone, that OCS production only occurs off the coasts of 6 States--yet the bill shares OCS revenues with 34 States. There are 28 coastal States that will get a share of OCS revenues which have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new OCS production. It is in the long-term best interest of this country to support responsible and sustainable development of nonrenewable resources. We now import more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum requirements and the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. OCS development will play an important role in offsetting even greater dependence on foreign energy. The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas production and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that the OCS continues to meet our future domestic energy needs. I firmly believe that the Federal Government needs to do all it can to pursue and encourage further technological advances in OCS exploration and production. These technological achievements have and will continue to result in new OCS production having an unparalleled record of excellence on environmental and safety issues. Additional technological advances with appropriate incentives will further improve new resource recovery and therefore increase revenues to the Treasury for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by OCS money. I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new OCS development in the Arctic. A number of challenges face new developments in this area--I am confident that we can work through them all. History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas, development and the environmental protection are compatible. This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the Federal Government from OCS development and invests it in conservation and wildlife programs. Thus, Titles II and III of the bill share OCS revenues with all States for such purposes. Title II of this bill provides a secure source of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF was established over three decades ago to provide Federal money for State and Federal land acquisition and help meet Americans' recreation needs. Over thirty years ago, Congress had the foresight to recognize the ever growing need of the American public for parks and recreation facilities with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. That landmark piece of legislation was premised on the belief that revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable resource need to be reinvested in a renewable resource for the benefit of future generations. This rationale is as valid today as it was in the mid-1960's. To accomplish this goal, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act directs that revenues earned from offshore oil and gas production should be spent on the acquisition of Federal recreation lands by the land management agencies. The act also creates a state-side matching grant program. The state-side matching grant program provides 50-50 matching grants to States and local communities for the acquisition and construction of park and recreation facilities. The state-side program has a truly unique legacy in the history of American conservation by providing the States with a leadership role in the provision of recreation opportunities. Through the 1995 fiscal year, over 3.2 billion in Federal dollars have been leveraged to fund over 37,000 State and local park and recreation projects. Yet, despite these successes, the President had not requested any money for the state-side program for the last 4 years. This is a program supported by this Nation's mayors, Governors, and the recreation community. The state-side matching grant should not have to justify annually its existence with congressional appropriators. Title II makes this program self-sufficient and provides secure funding from OCS revenues. Title III of this bill provides funding for State fish and wildlife conservation programs. In Alaska, with its unparalleled natural beauty, fishing and hunting are two of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation. The bill directs that a portion of OCS revenues should go to the States for wildlife purposes. The money would be distributed through the Pittman-Robertson program administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for State fish and game programs would nearly double. This is a no-tax alternative to the Teaming with Wildlife proposal. States will be able to use these monies to increase fish and wildlife populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat. States also could use the money for wildlife education programs. I am proud of this proposal which is a win-win for the oil and gas industry, the States, environmental and conservation groups, and all Americans. This bill will ensure not only that Coastal States have money to address the effects of OCS-activities but that all States have funds necessary to provide outdoor recreation and conservation resources for all of us today to enjoy. As we end the 105th Congress, I can pledge, as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that the enactment of this bill will be one of my highest priorities next year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Landrieu and Lott, to introduce the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998. This important piece of legislation remedies a tremendous inequity in the distribution of revenues generated by offshore oil and gas production by directing that a portion of those moneys be allocated to coastal States and communities who shoulder the responsibility for energy development activity off their coastlines. It also provides a secure funding source for state recreation and wildlife conservation programs. The OCS Impact Assistance portion of this bill is similar to legislation I have introduced in prior Congresses and is an issue I have worked on for my entire Senate career. Title 1 of the bill directs that a portion of the revenues generated from oil and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--or OCS--be returned to coastal States and communities that share the burdens of exploration and production off their coastlines. Offshore oil and gas production generates $3 to $4 billion in revenues annually for the U.S. Treasury. Yet, unlike mineral receipts from onshore Federal lands, OCS oil and gas revenues are not directly returned to the States in which production occurs. This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that bear the responsibilities for offshore oil and gas production will share in its benefits. This legislation would, for the first time, share revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities with counties, parishes and boroughs--the local governmental entities most directly affected--and State governments. The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, including those States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs and directs that a portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS production occurs off their coasts. Coastal States and communities can use OCS Impact Assistance funds on everything from environmental programs, to coastal and marine conservation efforts, to new infrastructure requirements. In Alaska, local communities could use OCS funds to participate in the environmental planning process required by Federal laws before OCS development occurs. Other rural coastal communities in Alaska will use the money for sanitation improvements. While still others, like Unalakleet, will use the money to construct sea walls and breakwaters or beach rehabilitation--efforts which will combat the impacts of coastal erosion. This is money that will be used, day-in and day-out, to improve the quality of life on coastal State residents--money which comes from oil and gas production. Further, as the Federal OCS program expands in Alaska, this legislation will mean even more revenues to the State, boroughs and local communities. This is a true investment in the future. As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know all too well that offshore oil and gas production is a lightning rod for environmental groups who will go to great lengths to disparage an activity that is vital to the long-term energy and economic security of this country. These groups will likely say that this bill creates incentives for offshore oil and gas production because a factor in the distribution formula is a State's proximity to OCS production. Let us remember, this is an impact assistance bill--revenue sharing, if you will. States only will have impacts if they have production. The States with production, obviously, have greater needs and are most deserving of a larger share of OCS revenues. Mr. President, let me also remind everyone, that OCS production only occurs off the coasts of 6 States--yet the bill shares OCS revenues with 34 States. There are 28 coastal States that will get a share of OCS revenues which have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new OCS production. It is in the long-term best interest of this country to support responsible and sustainable development of nonrenewable resources. We now import more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum requirements and the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. OCS development will play an important role in offsetting even greater dependence on foreign energy. The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas production and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that the OCS continues to meet our future domestic energy needs. I firmly believe that the Federal Government needs to do all it can to pursue and encourage further technological advances in OCS exploration and production. These technological achievements have and will continue to result in new OCS production having an unparalleled record of excellence on environmental and safety issues. Additional technological advances with appropriate incentives will further improve new resource recovery and therefore increase revenues to the Treasury for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by OCS money. I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new OCS development in the Arctic. A number of challenges face new developments in this area--I am confident that we can work through them all. History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas, development and the environmental protection are compatible. This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the Federal Government from OCS development and invests it in conservation and wildlife programs. Thus, Titles II and III of the bill share OCS revenues with all States for such purposes. Title II of this bill provides a secure source of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF was established over three decades ago to provide Federal money for State and Federal land acquisition and help meet Americans' recreation needs. Over thirty years ago, Congress had the foresight to recognize the ever growing need of the American public for parks and recreation facilities with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. That landmark piece of legislation was premised on the belief that revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable resource need to be reinvested in a renewable resource for the benefit of future generations. This rationale is as valid today as it was in the mid-1960's. To accomplish this goal, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act directs that revenues earned from offshore oil and gas production should be spent on the acquisition of Federal recreation lands by the land management agencies. The act also creates a state-side matching grant program. The state-side matching grant program provides 50-50 matching grants to States and local communities for the acquisition and construction of park and recreation facilities. The state-side program has a truly unique legacy in the history of American conservation by providing the States with a leadership role in the provision of recreation opportunities. Through the 1995 fiscal year, over 3.2 billion in Federal dollars have been leveraged to fund over 37,000 State and local park and recreation projects. Yet, despite these successes, the President had not requested any money for the state-side program for the last 4 years. This is a program supported by this Nation's mayors, Governors, and the recreation community. The state-side matching grant should not have to justify annually its existence with congressional appropriators. Title II makes this program self-sufficient and provides secure funding from OCS revenues. Title III of this bill provides funding for State fish and wildlife conservation programs. In Alaska, with its unparalleled natural beauty, fishing and hunting are two of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation. The bill directs that a portion of OCS revenues should go to the States for wildlife purposes. The money would be distributed through the Pittman-Robertson program administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for State fish and game programs would nearly double. This is a no-tax alternative to the Teaming with Wildlife proposal. States will be able to use these monies to increase fish and wildlife populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat. States also could use the money for wildlife education programs. I am proud of this proposal which is a win-win for the oil and gas industry, the States, environmental and conservation groups, and all Americans. This bill will ensure not only that Coastal States have money to address the effects of OCS-activities but that all States have funds necessary to provide outdoor recreation and conservation resources for all of us today to enjoy. As we end the 105th Congress, I can pledge, as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that the enactment of this bill will be one of my highest priorities next year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to thank some of my staff who worked on the bill. On behalf of Senator Stevens and myself, we would like to thank the various staff who worked so hard on the King Cove bill. Brian Malnak of my staff--particularly the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--Jo Meuse, David Dye, Gary Ellsworth, who is unfortunately retiring this year and will be greatly missed, and a number of others. And let me thank my colleagues in the debate: Senator Bumpers, the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who is retiring this year; Senator Baucus from Montana; and let me again thank the Members for the vote of confidence in support of fairness. The vote was 59-38. I am sure that will send a strong message over to the House on the merits of addressing the needs of the Aleut people of King Cove who seek what we enjoy every day--and that is access. I thank my colleagues and thank the Presiding Officer. I wish you all well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I want to make one more point, and then I will yield to my colleagues who are in opposition. I noted an article in The Hill, one of Capitol Hill's weekly papers, on September 30. It amazes me because this is part of the problem we have, the failure of those who are in opposition--in this case, a letter from a senior vice president of public policy of the National Audubon Society. It is entitled ``Murkowski's Bond Proposal is a $30 Million Boondoggle.'' It is to the editor. He says that the proposed solution of ``a road to life,'' as this Senator suggests: There is not a shred of evidence [in the writer's opinion] that a road will provide reliable, safe, medical evacuation in areas prone to avalanches, blizzards, white outs, dense fog, and extreme air turbulence. I answer, very simply, that the roads are there now. The roads are passable. You might have to slow down. This is not tremendous areas of concentrated snowfall. The problem is extreme turbulence associated with moving an aircraft through the skies during those terrible storms. So the roads are there now. He goes on to say: In fact, this single lane, 30-mile, $30 million gravel road is a taxpayer and environmental boondoggle. That is an outright lie. That is an outright lie. We are not asking for $30 million. We are not asking for a red cent. This is how this issue is portrayed to the American public--``30-mile, $30 million gravel road is a taxpayer and environmental boondoggle.'' A cool $1 million per mile. That road isn't costing $1 million per mile, and we are not asking for Federal funds. They mischaracterize it. Why, Mr. President, can't we have a debate on the merits without misleading the people? Talk about the bird habitat--I appreciate and am sensitive to it. This road is not going to interfere with that anymore than we have seen roads in Cordovo or roads in Juneau interfere. The fact is that we are only talking about a population of 700, and the roads already exist in the wilderness. He suggests an all-weather boat ambulance could effectively back up this facility. I think you have seen the picture. You have seen, also, the people who have perished. He talks about a ``life-saving boat'' plan as a solution. He doesn't mention the bay freezes. Again, it is a case of somebody who has never been there, never experienced the isolation, what it means to be without access. Clearly, there is an alternative. We suggested it in this legislation. Again, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the appeal of the people from King Cove who have come to their offices, to recognize, indeed, how they would respond if it were their constituents, and recognize that there is a viable alternative here, and that is a simple road which is a win-win-win--the environmental communities and the wilderness--because we are adding 580 acres to the wilderness and we are not putting a road through the wilderness. We are doing a land exchange and putting that road through a refuge. It will be my intent to talk a bit more a little later, because I am sure some of my friends may have some questions or I may have a rebuttal. With that, I thank the Chair for the attention. In deference to my colleague, I recognize we had conversations relative to the merits of this and I know, obviously, there is pressure by the administration on this particular issue. I take that in the spirit under which it is going to be communicated. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation regarding the Export-Import Bank. This legislation is both pro-trade and pro-environment. Let me start by saying that I support U.S. international finance institutions like Ex-Im Bank, OPIC and TDA because they are necessary to level the playing field for American companies seeking to compete abroad. In a perfect world, such government assistance would be unnecessary, but we know that the other industrialized countries are using government financing to sweeten the pot for their companies' participation in international projects. My legislation addresses the well-meaning environmental policies of the Bank that are actually harming the environment while undermining American competitiveness. Specifically, my legislation does two things: First, it directs the Ex-Im Bank to negotiate a mulitlateral agreement with the export financing agencies of all G-7 countries to address environmentally sensitive development overseas. Second, until such agreement is reached, my legislation would allow U.S. companies to compete on equal footing with other international companies bidding on international projects. In other words, my legislation would ensure that American companies have access to Ex-Im Bank financing for overseas projects where other G-7 countries are providing or have indicated an intent to provide financing to the project in question without conditioning such assistance on environmental policies or procedures. Mr. President, under current law, the Ex-Im Bank can deny financing to U.S. companies seeking to participate in international projects when the Bank's environmental concerns have not been adequately addressed by foreign countries. But there is no mechanism in place to ensure that all G-7 countries abide by the same set of rules or environmental standards in competing for such projects. The net effect of this law is to impose unilateral sanctions on U.S. companies in the name of the environment. The lack of American participation in the largest hydroelectric project in the World, the $24.5 billion Three Gorges Dam Project in China, illustrates why this change in law is necessary. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to promote U.S. exports and U.S. jobs. Yet, the Bank refused to provide financial guarantees for this project because the Bank's environmental concerns had not been satisfactorily addressed by the Chinese government. There were two perverse outcomes from the Bank's decision. First, the project is going ahead anyway without the environmental technologies and practices our companies' participation would bring. And second, the only American participation is by companies that are large enough to use their foreign subsidiaries with another government's financing, and consequently the jobs are going to the Japanese, the Canadians and the Europeans. A letter that I received from the President of Rotec Industries, located in Elmhurst, Illinois, explains the detrimental effects of the Ex-Im Banks decision. Rotec submitted a bid to the Chinese government for $130 million of U.S.-made concrete placing and transporting equipment. Following the Ex-Im Bank's negative decision they received an order for only a fraction of their proposal. A Japanese-French consortium received an order for ``Rotec-equivalent'' equipment. But it gets worse. As Rotec's president explained: No Ex-Im financing meant no made-in-the-USA requirements and no made-in-the-USA price premium . . . For the first time in our 32-year history, Rotec subcontracted manufacturing to companies in South Korea. The effect on U.S. jobs is easy to quantify . . . Rotec will have spent over $13,000,000 in South Korea. With Ex-Im's support, this work--and probably more--would have stayed in the United States. But this was not the only bad news for Rotec. Before Ex-Im's decision, Rotec was the world's only manufacturer of this specialized equipment. But the Japanese-French consortium selected by the Chinese have now copied Rotec's product. As Rotec's president described it, Ex- Im's decision helped open the door and they [the consortium] walked right in. Rotec will likely face foreign competition wherever this product is needed.'' Other U.S. companies who sought to participate in the Three Gorges Dam project tell a similar story. Caterpillar estimates that it lost $200 million in sales. GE routed its bid through its Canadian subsidiary. Voight Hydro of Pennsylvania had to withdraw its bid in favor of its German parent, which won $85 million of contracts. Although my legislation cannot retroactively change the effect of the Ex-Im Bank's decision on U.S. participation in the Three Gorges Dam project, we will face this issue again. A recent New York Times story quoted Chinese officials who pledge to spend $1.2 trillion on a vast program of new infrastructure projects over the next three years. Included in those projects are plans to build five large hydroelectric power stations over the next 12 years, at a cost exceeding $7 billion. Although this is small compared to Three Gorges, it presents excellent opportunities for U.S. companies. In addition, the Chinese have plans to order a new nuclear plant each year for the next 20 years. This emerging Chinese market is estimated to be worth $1.65 billion per year in U.S. nuclear exports, supporting an equivalent of 25,400 full time American jobs. I am told that the environmental lobbyists are out in full force against this legislation. Environmental groups have circulated a letter stating that my legislation would mean that ``[t]he United States Government will likely support dangerous nuclear power plants, unsustainable logging of primary forests, and huge hydroelectric dams resettling millions of people in developing countries with no environmental safeguards allowed.'' Mr. President, let me just respond to their claim that nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams should not be funded on environmental grounds. China is a case in point. By 2015 China will surpass the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. According to the World Health Organization, 6 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China. Coal supplies three-quarters of China's energy and is choking its cities. Already, hundreds of thousands of Chinese die premature deaths each year from chronic respiratory illness. Thousands more died this year from flooding of the Yangtze River and millions more were displaced. Mr. President, how can the environmentalists ignore the benefits to China's environment, indeed to the World's environment, of helping China turn to cleaner forms of energy such as hydro and nuclear? The 18,200 megawatt Three Gorges Dam will replace the equivalent of thirty- six 500 megawatt coal fossil plants. In a country suffocating on dirty air, how can any rational environmental policy promote coal and penalize clean burning hydro and nuclear power? Of course, hydro and nuclear plants have environmental consequences. Every form of energy production does. Even windmills become cuisinarts for birds. But countries such as China have the right to determine which consequences she can accept. Let's make sure that Ex-Im does not unilaterally rule out American participation in future projects. Support my legislation and vote to help American companies compete. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Rotec letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation regarding the Export-Import Bank. This legislation is both pro-trade and pro-environment. Let me start by saying that I support U.S. international finance institutions like Ex-Im Bank, OPIC and TDA because they are necessary to level the playing field for American companies seeking to compete abroad. In a perfect world, such government assistance would be unnecessary, but we know that the other industrialized countries are using government financing to sweeten the pot for their companies' participation in international projects. My legislation addresses the well-meaning environmental policies of the Bank that are actually harming the environment while undermining American competitiveness. Specifically, my legislation does two things: First, it directs the Ex-Im Bank to negotiate a mulitlateral agreement with the export financing agencies of all G-7 countries to address environmentally sensitive development overseas. Second, until such agreement is reached, my legislation would allow U.S. companies to compete on equal footing with other international companies bidding on international projects. In other words, my legislation would ensure that American companies have access to Ex-Im Bank financing for overseas projects where other G-7 countries are providing or have indicated an intent to provide financing to the project in question without conditioning such assistance on environmental policies or procedures. Mr. President, under current law, the Ex-Im Bank can deny financing to U.S. companies seeking to participate in international projects when the Bank's environmental concerns have not been adequately addressed by foreign countries. But there is no mechanism in place to ensure that all G-7 countries abide by the same set of rules or environmental standards in competing for such projects. The net effect of this law is to impose unilateral sanctions on U.S. companies in the name of the environment. The lack of American participation in the largest hydroelectric project in the World, the $24.5 billion Three Gorges Dam Project in China, illustrates why this change in law is necessary. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to promote U.S. exports and U.S. jobs. Yet, the Bank refused to provide financial guarantees for this project because the Bank's environmental concerns had not been satisfactorily addressed by the Chinese government. There were two perverse outcomes from the Bank's decision. First, the project is going ahead anyway without the environmental technologies and practices our companies' participation would bring. And second, the only American participation is by companies that are large enough to use their foreign subsidiaries with another government's financing, and consequently the jobs are going to the Japanese, the Canadians and the Europeans. A letter that I received from the President of Rotec Industries, located in Elmhurst, Illinois, explains the detrimental effects of the Ex-Im Banks decision. Rotec submitted a bid to the Chinese government for $130 million of U.S.-made concrete placing and transporting equipment. Following the Ex-Im Bank's negative decision they received an order for only a fraction of their proposal. A Japanese-French consortium received an order for ``Rotec-equivalent'' equipment. But it gets worse. As Rotec's president explained: No Ex-Im financing meant no made-in-the-USA requirements and no made-in-the-USA price premium . . . For the first time in our 32-year history, Rotec subcontracted manufacturing to companies in South Korea. The effect on U.S. jobs is easy to quantify . . . Rotec will have spent over $13,000,000 in South Korea. With Ex-Im's support, this work--and probably more--would have stayed in the United States. But this was not the only bad news for Rotec. Before Ex-Im's decision, Rotec was the world's only manufacturer of this specialized equipment. But the Japanese-French consortium selected by the Chinese have now copied Rotec's product. As Rotec's president described it, Ex- Im's decision helped open the door and they [the consortium] walked right in. Rotec will likely face foreign competition wherever this product is needed.'' Other U.S. companies who sought to participate in the Three Gorges Dam project tell a similar story. Caterpillar estimates that it lost $200 million in sales. GE routed its bid through its Canadian subsidiary. Voight Hydro of Pennsylvania had to withdraw its bid in favor of its German parent, which won $85 million of contracts. Although my legislation cannot retroactively change the effect of the Ex-Im Bank's decision on U.S. participation in the Three Gorges Dam project, we will face this issue again. A recent New York Times story quoted Chinese officials who pledge to spend $1.2 trillion on a vast program of new infrastructure projects over the next three years. Included in those projects are plans to build five large hydroelectric power stations over the next 12 years, at a cost exceeding $7 billion. Although this is small compared to Three Gorges, it presents excellent opportunities for U.S. companies. In addition, the Chinese have plans to order a new nuclear plant each year for the next 20 years. This emerging Chinese market is estimated to be worth $1.65 billion per year in U.S. nuclear exports, supporting an equivalent of 25,400 full time American jobs. I am told that the environmental lobbyists are out in full force against this legislation. Environmental groups have circulated a letter stating that my legislation would mean that ``[t]he United States Government will likely support dangerous nuclear power plants, unsustainable logging of primary forests, and huge hydroelectric dams resettling millions of people in developing countries with no environmental safeguards allowed.'' Mr. President, let me just respond to their claim that nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams should not be funded on environmental grounds. China is a case in point. By 2015 China will surpass the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. According to the World Health Organization, 6 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China. Coal supplies three-quarters of China's energy and is choking its cities. Already, hundreds of thousands of Chinese die premature deaths each year from chronic respiratory illness. Thousands more died this year from flooding of the Yangtze River and millions more were displaced. Mr. President, how can the environmentalists ignore the benefits to China's environment, indeed to the World's environment, of helping China turn to cleaner forms of energy such as hydro and nuclear? The 18,200 megawatt Three Gorges Dam will replace the equivalent of thirty- six 500 megawatt coal fossil plants. In a country suffocating on dirty air, how can any rational environmental policy promote coal and penalize clean burning hydro and nuclear power? Of course, hydro and nuclear plants have environmental consequences. Every form of energy production does. Even windmills become cuisinarts for birds. But countries such as China have the right to determine which consequences she can accept. Let's make sure that Ex-Im does not unilaterally rule out American participation in future projects. Support my legislation and vote to help American companies compete. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Rotec letter be printed in the Record.