Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I don't want to confound this any further, but I think I was of the impression and I think the Senator from Montana was of the impression that the Senator from Massachusetts was going to rise to speak on the King Cove matter. Am I correct that is the Senator's understanding?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time, and I ask on behalf of the leader unanimous consent that all time be considered as yielded back.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And the Senate proceed to vote on the passage of S. 1092, the King Cove/Cold Bay legislation. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may offer a clarification. When the unanimous consent was agreed upon, I was under the impression the Senator from Massachusetts was going to speak on the bill. I have no objection to the time being granted, but we had hoped to have a vote around 5 o'clock. As far as we are concerned, we are ready for the vote. So it is the floor manager on the other side who controls the time. I tell Senator Kennedy, if he would like to go ahead and allow us to vote, then he could have time after the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I just ask the Senator to withhold for a moment?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that a listing from the King Cove Clinic from April 1998 to present day covering medevacs be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are still waiting on this side for an indication from the leadership about disposition of this. My understanding is we can anticipate a vote very shortly, but I have to defer, pending clarification. In the meantime, I want to clarify the Record. The Senator from Montana suggested that the State of Alaska does not support this road. Let me read a statement from the Anchorage Daily News, Wednesday, June 7, 1995. It reads as follows: Knowles-- Who is our Governor-- Says he favors a road to Whittier, a 16-mile link between Nondalton and Itulilik, and a 20-mile road between King Cove and Cold Bay on the Alaskan Peninsula. That was the Anchorage Daily News, Wednesday, June 7, 1995. Relative to another matter that was brought up by my friend on the assessment of transportation needs by the Alaska Department of Transportation, let me read a synopsis, and that is: Based on a comparison with other alternatives, the road alternative provides a positive benefit stream throughout the life of the project with total benefits exceeding total costs by more than $242 million through the year 2018. I am not going to dwell on that because some of these projections are really little more than a hypothetical wish list, whether it be on the issue of whatever the economic value of the fish products are or whatever. But I think it is fair to say the people who put intermodal transportation analysis together do so based on a lot of longitude and latitude relative to realities associated with the market ability associated with what the economics basically have to support. I would again defer to something that I brought up time and time again, and that is the fact--this is what I find rather amusing about the attitude of the administration and its veto threat. They are not even giving credence to the Secretary of the Interior and the flexibility that we have given him to address this road should it have any detrimental impact on any of the migratory wildlife or initiating any other activity that would be detrimental. This has not been addressed by the opponents. It is not being addressed by the administration. They have come up with a flat veto. I would like to think that my colleagues would not be moved or motivated by a disinterested administration that does not address the concern associated with what this road means, and it really means a road to life for a very, very small exchange--an exchange not in the wilderness but, indeed, a land exchange in refuge and a net benefit to the wilderness of some 580 acres. What you have here, Mr. President, is you have gotten a battened down environmental group that is dug in--the Audubon Society, and various others, pulling out all stops to overcome the 730 residents of King Cove on an issue that means perhaps that they will lose face if they lose this vote. I would like to think that the 100 individuals here are individuals, they think for themselves, they are not motivated by a rush associated with a herd mentality and will address this issue on its merits. The merits are very simple, Mr. President. This is a road to life for the residents of King Cove. I would appreciate all my colleagues to recognize the issue on its merits and not be threatened by any veto threats from the administration, none of which have to put up with the rigors of living in a wilderness area, such as those residents who live in King Cove. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Massachusetts for the debate, my senior Senator, Senator Stevens, and the Senator from Tennessee who shared with us his expertise on telemedicine, Senator Frist. Again, as we look at the alternatives, recognize we have been looking at alternatives for 14 years. This is time for action. The action that we contemplate is a simple land exchange giving the Secretary of the Interior the oversight authority. I cannot imagine anything that is more fair and provides a balance than what we have proposed. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment that I have as well as to vote in favor of the bill. I have been asked by the leadership to suggest the absence of a quorum. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I might add that from April 3rd to August 28th, there were 16 specific medevacs. The first one on April 3rd, there was a 2-hour delay; 14th, 1-hour delay; May 5, an hour delay; no delays in the two in May; there were no delays in June; on July 5, there was a 1-day delay. Not an hour, Mr. President, a 1-day delay; July 8, 3-hour delay; July 28, 1-day delay; July 28, 1-day delay; August 9, a miscarriage, no delay; August 20, pneumonia, 1-day delay. These are the official records that indicate what is really happening. The only difference is this is summertime. This is the good weather. Try it on October, November, December, or January. To give you some idea, this is from the National Weather Service, Marine Desk, lower south side Alaska peninsula, including waters near Cold Bay and King Cove. On the following days in March, small craft advisory warnings; winds between 25 and 34 knots were issued, not only on the 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 17th, 19th, 20th, and 21st, but on the following days in March of the same year, gale warnings of 35 to 50 knots were issued on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 22nd, 25th, 26th, 31st. There is more air around there than there certainly is around here. And the following days in March wind advisories greater than 50 knots were issued, on the 23d, 24th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th. Only 5 days during the month were there no marine advisories in this area. That is what we are talking about in Cold Bay and King Cove. It is not just once in a while. Now, what is hypocrisy? Well, let's try this on for consideration. It might be the Clinton administration and the Washington green lobby opposing a small, one-lane gravel road in an Alaska wildlife refuge to allow a few Aleut Native people to reach emergency medical care while at the same time allowing an international airport to expand a runway-- a runway, Mr. President--into a wildlife refuge which is the home to endangered species and provides essential habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. Where is the Senator from Arkansas? Where is the Senator from Montana? Where is the Senator from Massachusetts? Where is the righteousness as to what is happening? Well, I see a look of concern. On September 21, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that they had reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Airport Commission to allow a new runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport which would severely impact the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Bloomington, MN. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge currently consists of 9,429 acres of land. This agreement will require the replacement of 4,000 acres of refuge land which will be impacted by what? Well, let's try aircraft noise. I quote. Here it comes, gentlemen. ``We would have preferred to keep our refuge and our programs intact,'' says Rich Schultz, refuge manager. ``But we certainly recognize the need for safe, reliable air transportation so I am glad we were able to come to an agreement at least in principle. It will take a lot of effort to relocate our facility's programs, but this should be done to allow us to provide additional opportunities for our growing Metro population.'' Well, what is hypocrisy, Mr. President? Perhaps there is no comparison between the minimal potential impact on wildlife from a small gravel road with an occasional--an occasional--car passing in a 300,000 acre wildlife refuge in an area that is excluded from the wilderness and the hundreds of jets--hundreds? Come on, let's talk about thousands of jets--taking off each week from an international airport over a smaller, 9,000 acre refuge in Minnesota. Well, we have heard the Senator from Arkansas say the President is going to veto this. We have heard that before. Well, charity starts at home, Mr. President. The Clinton administration has made a purely political decision, and I think it is a cruel one at that. It takes into consideration not the people of King Cove or their dreams of access. It would deny medical care for Alaska Natives while giving the population of Minneapolis a jetway with enormous impacts on the environment with regard to noise and air pollution. Well, I guess that is the way it goes around here. But nevertheless, I think everyone would recognize there is certainly an injustice. Imagine that. The excuse is the refuge manager recognizes the need for safe, reliable transportation. But here again we are proceeding to allow a new runway that would impact on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Bloomington, MN, consisting of 9,429 acres of land and the agreement will require the replacement of 4,000 acres of refuge land. So there we have it, Mr. President. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, somebody once said. Now, I don't know if there is a value, commercial value in expanding that runway, but I would let the example speak for itself. There are a couple more things I want to say in conclusion. Staff did a good job of preparing to respond to some of the statements that have been made in the debate, and I would be remiss not to address them at this time. We have done a little research here, and I hope that our comments are an accurate reflection because they are taken from the Record. Back on Tuesday, September 29, the statement by the Senator from Montana states: Mr. President, the rider establishes a very troubling precedent. Congress has never authorized the construction of a road through a wilderness area. The fact is the proposal does not authorize construction of a road through a wilderness. I think I made that point time and time again. The language authorizes a boundary adjustment which Congress routinely has used to provide access through wilderness areas, most notably, the Lee Metcalf Act of 1983, which withdrew several acres in Montana for a road to a fishing hole. I know my colleague already addressed that. Later the Senator from Montana said: The bill would cut the refuge in half. Well, the refuge is 300,000 acres. The proposed road corridor skirts the very edge of the refuge impacting only less than 0.3 percent of the refuge land. The proposed road corridor is 3 miles south, south mind you, of the Izembek lagoon complex and is separated by 3 miles of terrain. The reason you move it back is an obvious one. You want to get away from the immediate tidal wetlands area and put it in a little higher area of elevation. Further, the Senator from Montana indicated: Mr. President, this is a road that now exists in part of the wilderness area. This is what is there now. This is what would be contemplated. As you can tell, it is a pretty good size road. It is no small, little cow path. And that was the picture the Senator had. The facts are the road would be, well, not more than 60 feet wide taking up only 85 acres through 7 miles of the refuge. In return, the Natives would return 664 acres--664 acres of privately owned lands to the refuge. The road would be constructed of gravel, like many of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife roads that are already present in the refuge. So I think that is a factual rebuttal. And if I may continue. Furthermore, on September 29, the Senator from Montana indicated: There are many ways to address the legitimate transportation problems at King Cove without violating the Izembek refuge: Coast Guard air evacuation is one; better port facilities and special marine ambulances are another; as well as telemedicine and other medical advances. We have been studying it for 14 years. The fact is the Coast Guard does not, will not, and cannot handle the dangerous conditions associated with the numerous land-based evacuations. It is a policy matter. To do so would put lives at risk and would fundamentally alter the Coast Guard's mission, which is a sea mission. You have 20-foot seas, and 50-knot winds are not uncommon in the area. Portions of Cold Bay can freeze in the winter. Telemedicine, of course, as we have heard from Senator Frist, while of benefit, will not reattach limbs and certainly cannot alter the care of premature births. There was a reference further by the Senator from Montana: The fact of the matter is when you look a lot deeper into this, the real impetus behind the road may not be emergency medical evacuation. That is not the real driving force here. Really, it is that the folks there have an economic interest in having a road. Mr. President, this road is about saving lives. The economics is not part of the equation. Marine transportation is the manner in which the products in cold storage, in the canning operation, in fish processing, move. They move traditionally that way because the value of the product simply does not support moving it by air, and anybody in the business will tell you so, including the residents there. But last, no one on the other side has addressed this: We provide the authority for the Secretary of the Interior to close the road for nonemergency use. What more could we do? If he sees this road is being inappropriately used, he can close it, he can limit it--whatever. This is about lives. What has happened here is extremely unfortunate. The leaders in the environmental community, some of whom may be listening--I hope they are--somehow have decided to dig in on this. ``Break your pick on this one. This is the issue.'' It is the issue at whose expense? The Aleut people in King Cove. They are too far away to be heard from. It is too expensive to go out and see them. So we will just stand on this one. Let me tell you what our health care providers say when they speak up, and these are people who are treating people in rural Alaska. It is an issue of access. It is an issue of life. There it is. I quote: The greatest limiting factor to air ambulance is weather and the condition of the airport [at King Cove]. Being able to use the Cold Bay facility will enhance our ability to get in and continue care of patients . . . if the road saves one life, it's worth it. This is from Dean C. Dow, MICP, Lifeflight Emergency Evacuation Service, Alaska Regional Hospital, Anchorage. They are out there, taking care of the people who use the medivac. The next one: Distance between communities in Alaska dwarfs many states in the Lower 48 and telecommunications are often sketchy. A wise person once said, ``If a successful fax transmission is a blessing, then successful telemedicine transmissions could be a miracle . . . the telehealth system will not carry a human body that needs advanced medical care . . . it will only enhance medical care. It will not remove the need for treacherous evacuations that so often take place from King Cove.'' Kathy Boucha-Roberts, director of alliances and telemedicine, Providence Health System, Anchorage. Next one: All we want is safe access for our people. We see the road as our only hope. Della Trumble, King Cove Native Corporation: The King Cove Medical Clinic (a small, four-room building) [that is all they have] is forced to take drastic measures and lose critical time in attempting to complete a medivac-- travel by boat in dangerous sea conditions . . . a road between King Cove and Cold Bay would bring us to our Medivac flight and into the 20th Century in emergency response. Let's see the picture. This is the facility at King Cove. It has the Red Cross on it. That is it. If you get your leg broken, have a baby-- whatever--that is all you have. It is a lot better than nothing. But when you are in need of something--look at cloud cover here. You might see that in the picture. This is a good day in King Cove, believe me. The last one: Inclement weather severely impacts prompt medical air evacuations. Medivac by fishing vessel is directly affected by wind, ice and poor visibility, making offloading the patient on a dock extremely stressful and hazardous . . . the King Cove Rescue Squad believes that the road to Cold Bay is a necessary alternative to existing air and boat medivac. Marilyn Mack, emergency medical technician, King Cove. Mind you, this is an effort by 700 people, a very small village, to be heard in the Congress of the United States. Let us see what our Members have said about access to health care. Some have said access to health care is a right. I agree. It is absolutely essential that Montanans have access to quality health care without having to cover massive distances. Sometimes getting to a hospital can be the difference between life and death. That is my good friend, the Senator from Montana. We have the best health care in the world in many respects, but it is available to people only if they are able to access the kind of doctors they need . . . people ought to be able to seek emergency room care if they need emergency room care. That is my friend, Senator Dorgan. I agree. Denying our citizens an opportunity to participate in the greatest advances that are taking place in the medical profession is effectively a death sentence . . . it is really an issue of lifesaving protections. Senator Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts. We must ensure that quality health care is there for people when they need it . . . we must protect patients from decisions made by accountants and bureaucrats in insurance companies and have their health care decisions made by physicians. Senator Barbara Boxer. Patients should have access to health care professionals who are qualified to treat their conditions and not forced to accept people without the proper professional credentials . . . if a doctor believes a certain treatment is necessary, as a matter of right, that doctor's judgment should prevail. Senator Robert Torricelli, New Jersey. That is what some of our colleagues are saying about the right to have access to health care. That is what I am saying, what our senior Senator is saying--the right to have access, the best access, the most practical access. It is the access that would be brought about by this exchange which we are proposing, an exchange in the wilderness for an additional area of wilderness of about 580 acres. Mr. President, I inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

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. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a petition that was signed by approximately 50 residents of Cold Bay expressing their support for the exchange be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend will yield for a question on the snow.

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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yield at this time, but I will certainly take a question at the end.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not going to----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The point is, Mr. President, to question the motivation of the Senators from Alaska on the question of commercialization is without any foundation and without any feasibility regardless of what some study or report suggests as a potential alternative. It is simply not real. Now, the other issue relative to the points that have been made by my friend from Montana, who clearly doesn't speak from experience or having visited the area, is the issue of the road and connecting, if you will, the roads that are in the area with this proposed extension. I would call attention to the fact that we have in this area almost 15 miles of road in the wilderness now. And if my friend, when he has an opportunity, would care to visit the area, I would be happy to take him and drive over these roads that exist in the wilderness today. What we are proposing is, not to address those roads, we are proposing simply to put another road extension, if you will, outside the wilderness in a refuge, and I think we have made that point again and again and again. To suggest there would be 400 people a day who would travel this road is ludicrous. There are 700 people in King Cove. There are 110 or 120 in Cold Bay. Now, I don't know where you get 400 people, or hundreds of trucks. This is make-believe simply to address an issue that--well, there is little local knowledge certainly in this body relative to the factual account. Believe me, if we could ship our products out by 747 and get the price that we would have to get for them, why, it would be a different matter. You talk about the issue of the sanctity of the wildlife sanctuaries, and that is a very real issue. But be assured that we have, as Senator Stevens indicated, in the Cold Bay airport a world- class airport. Prior to the advent of the long-range 747, many of the aircraft that traversed the North Pacific route had to land there for fuel. It was a big fueling base. Flying Tigers went in there for years and years and years. And to suggest that had a detrimental effect on the wildlife patterns is clearly without any merit. Furthermore, I would refer one more time to the fact that we have attempted to meet more than halfway every objection brought by the environmental community, even to the point of giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to direct the type of traffic on this road. Mr. President, I think we have pretty well covered all the concerns, except some of the irrelevant and impractical considerations that have no bearing on reality. So, I ask my colleagues, and the floor manager on the other side, how much time? Can we get an agreement on a vote? I could go on all day, but I defer to the floor manager on the other side to see if we can get some idea and certainty about how much more time they would like on their side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I thank my colleague from Tennessee for coming over and sharing his knowledge and experience in the area of not only telemedicine but as a trauma surgeon, and we have seen the Senator's performance when called upon here in this body in an emergency. We all commend the Senator for his extraordinary expertise and express our appreciation to the Senator for his many good works. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I know the hour is late and the Senator may wish to continue to speak. I am personally just about to wind up here. I would like to make a couple of points relative again to the allegation that somehow a road--and again I would point to one of the charts--faces significant closures because of snow. As we have indicated on numerous occasions, even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their warning do not address snow as a difficulty in transit on these roads. This is the type of road you see. Again, I would remind my colleagues that we are not looking for any funding here, we are looking for an authorization for a land exchange. We are not putting a road through a wilderness, we are putting it through a refuge. It is a net-net gain for the environmental community because it adds approximately 580 acres to the wilderness. I also would like to point out that while my friend from Montana suggests we study it some more, we have been studying this thing since 1984. That is 14 years, Mr. President. We have had the Aleutians East Transportation Improvement Plan, we have had the Alaska Intermodel Transportation Plan, we have had the King Cove Bay Road Feasibility Study in 1995; the King Cove Briefing Report; the King Cove Bay Transportation Improvement Assessment draft report, 1997; the King Cove-Cold Bay Transportation Study of 1998. My point is that this issue has been pretty well studied, and for the people who have lived there for 5,000 years in King Cove, there is only one possible option that makes any sense. And they are pretty savvy people, because they have to be, they live in a harsh environment. We don't need another study. It is not going to save one more life. It will just delay the ultimate confirmation of what we already know-- that the road is the most practical, it is the least expensive, it is the most reliable alternative. That is why everybody else has them. And why shouldn't the people of King Cove? That is the real issue. Now, my friend brought up a point that I feel a little uncomfortable with because it questions our motivation. He suggested that the real reason behind this road was the commercial use. Well, first of all, I want to tell him and I want to tell the rest of my colleagues that I have never, never been approached by the fish processing firms that are over there that this, indeed, would be a significant benefit, nor have they lobbied me. If you understand the commerce of the North Pacific and the fisheries markets, you will know that most of the products that are produced in the small facility at King Cove are frozen fish products. Now, frozen fish products primarily are halibut and bottom fish, and they just don't demand, if you will, the market price to afford to fly them out to the markets. So as a consequence, what is produced here is carried by small freezer vessels and is marketed primarily in Japan and, to an extent, Korea. If you look at the map of Alaska, you can see the unique location of King Cove and the great circle route, and that is the route of transportation. Most of these ships sail out of Vancouver, BC, or Seattle, WA. These are freighters; they are American President Lines and various others. They go from the Seattle area and they stop by some of these areas on the Pacific Ocean side and pick up the frozen product in freezer vans and take them on to the Orient, whether it be the area of King Cove or whether it is Unalaska. To suggest that we have enough value in our fish products to warrant moving them out by truck or van is totally unrealistic because the price simply won't support that. You can't get that much for the product. You can talk about all the studies you want. There may be a half dozen individuals who will suggest that this is a potential market, but if the reality of the price isn't there--and it isn't there--you are not going to ship this out. I would ask my friend from Montana one other thing. Since we are giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to control all the traffic on the road, would he vote for this--if, indeed, the Secretary said there will be no commercial activity? We assure him of that. Would that satisfy the Senator from Montana? I would certainly think it should, because this is the point. He questions our motive.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I can tell you right now, there is no way that the value of this product would allow it to be shipped out by aircraft. The only thing that we have that would closely approximate that value is the king crab fresh, but it is very, very difficult. It is a very short season, and this isn't the predominant area necessarily for that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think, Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee would also be interested in knowing that there is no such thing currently as ground link communications in King Cove and that communications are by satellite. As one person recently put it, ``If a successful fax transmission is a blessing, then successful telemedicine transmissions could be, well, perhaps a miracle.''

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.