Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. According to the draft study by our State of Alaska, Mr. President, the average flight delay from King Cove--I think it was cited by the senior Senator, Senator Stevens--is approximately 8 hours. If a patient has a heart attack, stroke, or perhaps some other trauma, what are the chances for survival after such a delay?

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. I am not going to----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to point out again, relative to the snow, that the question was brought up by the Senator from Montana, suggesting that because of his opinion on the amount of snowfall that occurs in Montana, we must have that same condition. But isn't it rather unusual, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their notice of extreme weather, notes ``wind, rain, and fog, drizzle, overcast skies.'' Isn't it unusual that it would omit ``snow''? And in fact the reality is, there is very little snowfall in that area. I can't tell you how many times--I am sure you have gone to the airport by car and found out that the airport is closed and you had to drive someplace else.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that there are 6 hours equally divided.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. You can't do that if you live in King Cove and Cold Bay.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, some others argue that the building of a health clinic is the answer. Incidentally, I understand my good friend, Dr. Frist, will advise us later on the aspects of telemedicine, what you can and can't do. I am most appreciative of that. Still, others argue building a health care center is the answer. The answer, again, is it helps; we have a little bit of it there, but without a proper cardiac unit or prenatal unit, the people will still need transportation to other locations outside of King Cove in times of emergency. We are going to hear a lot of talk about helicopters. You are going to hear a lot of talk about helicopters from people who have never been in a helicopter when the wind is blowing 60 miles an hour, or have never been in a helicopter in severe turbulence. But I have, but not as much as the people I am going to talk about. The Secretary of the Interior says, ``Well, just use a helicopter.'' Let me show the map of Alaska, again, because the nearest helicopter is in Kodiak. There is nothing wrong with the aspects of that, other than Kodiak is 300 miles away. Here is Kodiak Island right here. We are 300 miles away in King Cove. This would be like telling the residents of Washington, DC, that their trip to safety will be provided by a helicopter that comes from Waterbury, CT. How is that? Or any other area that you care to pick. Even if a Coast Guard helicopter was stationed nearer to King Cove, where are you going to put it? There is not much out there in the Aleutian Islands. It is kind of tough to place the lives of Coast Guard personnel in danger when there are other alternatives. Let's flip this around. They say that there are alternatives and the helicopter is another alternative. The helicopter folks say, a helicopter is fine, but there are other alternatives and one is a road. Helicopters do not always work, for several reasons. First and foremost, they are not designed to handle severe turbulence. That is part of the daily life in King Cove. And any good helicopter pilot will tell you that the wind is not the issue, the turbulence is. The wind did not cause 11 deaths. It was the turbulence that caused the deaths. That is what brought the aircraft down. Second, we have done a little investigation working with the Coast Guard, who have been very responsive. The Coast Guard pilots are trained for maritime missions flying over water, not flying over mountainous terrain--not that they cannot do it, that is just not part of their training. Third, do we really want to change the mission of the Coast Guard to handle land-side medevacs when other alternatives such as one simple gravel road exists? I can assure you, Mr. President, the Coast Guard does not support such a change. Recently the admiral told me so. And I will quote his letter. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is a quote: The Coast Guard is a sea going service. Our personnel are trained and equipped to operate in the maritime environment, which poses very different challenges from those faced by shore-side responders. For the Coast Guard to take on the additional responsibility of responding to shore-side medical evacuation would require a fundamental change in the way we do business, a substantial increase in funding, and a complete reevaluation of our asset siting. Mr. President, on a more somber moment of reflection, the men and women of the Coast Guard are brave souls. I served in the U.S. Coast Guard. I am very proud of that body and proud of the time that I served our country. Men like Kevin M. McKracken from Springfield, OR, 25 years old; William Gregory Kemp, 27, of Docena, AL; David Rockmore, 52, of Cambridge, PA; Ralph King, 24, of Arden, NC; Michael C. Dollahite, 38, of El Paso, TX; and Robert L. Carson, Jr., 38, of Bostic, NC, all of whom perished, they all died, Mr. President, in a Coast Guard helicopter crash during an attempted medevac rescue on Ugak Island in Alaska. They crashed, Mr. President. That is the harsh reality of the danger of those who are prepared to give so much for the benefit of others. You are not just talking about sending a helicopter willy-nilly 300 miles, you are talking about a tough set of facts here, Mr. President. I have had discussions with the Secretary of the Interior. He may be willing to generalize on the issue of danger and the fact that the helicopter is an answer. But, you know, where do you get the appropriations for a helicopter--you have to have two crews, you have to have hangars; you have a population of 700 people here--when you have an alternative, a simple gravel road? That is all we are asking for. And you can debate whether we are wrong or right; we will take our chances. Let's talk about a sea link. That is interesting. You still have a population of 700 people. It would require a tremendous infrastructure. For example, you would need a 150-foot-long vessel to operate in the rough seas, probably have to have some kind of an ice-breaking capability, have to have dock facilities constructed at both King Cove and Cold Bay, breakwaters requiring more than--well, it is estimated it would take more than 67,000 feet of fill that would have to be constructed in King Cove and Cold Bay. Roads would have to be constructed to access boat docks. And even if all this were done, sick and injured people would have a minimum of a 2-and-a-half-hour, maybe 3-hour, trip in the treacherous seas. Let me show you a few pictures of what these seas look like. And it would still not be as reliable or as fast as a simple alternative of a one-lane gravel road. How many cars do you think you are going to have out of a population of 700 people in an isolated area going over that road a day? Three? Four? I do not know. Hardly enough. That is what you are looking at. How would you like to take a ride on that? I can tell you, 90 percent of the people in this body would be hanging over the side, deathly seasick. They would hope the boat would roll over and sink. But that is the access that we have. And this is what is proposed to be some kind of a sea link at a cost--who knows what it costs. We have had long debates in this body over the years about access to health care, haven't we? Nowhere does this take on a more dramatic meaning than King Cove. And when I say ``access,'' this means the actual physical ability to get to a hospital in a hurry, whether it be Anchorage or Seattle, WA, to get specialized health care needed in the event of a serious emergency or sickness. Right now, the residents of King Cove simply do not have that access. We have had other debates about access across public lands. And I always go back to a conversation I had with the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt. He said, ``If you folks have a need, show me an area where you need access across Federal lands, and I'll work with you.'' I cannot think of a greater need or an area that is more easily identifiable where we need access across Federal lands. And I would encourage him to reconsider. I believe that we have shown in this case we have a need. For some reason or other, those in the administration do not seem to support our plea that this is a matter of life and death to our constituents as well as American citizens. I find it terribly disturbing that where human life and safety issues are at stake, we see such an orchestrated effort to distort the facts by well-meaning people fronting for special interest groups, most of which do not give a darn about the people in King Cove or their plight, that through some idealistic interpretation they have taken this on as a cause. They fail to recognize what a gravel road is, fail to recognize we are not setting a precedent, fail to recognize we are not putting a road through a wilderness. It is amazing, when you think about it. Here is the health and safety of my constituents. And I am not going to stand by, and let some of these special interest groups control the agenda, and ignore the viability of what we are proposing--no Federal funding, simply a land exchange. I do not believe any Member of this body would stand by and let their constituents face such conditions. When we think about it, what does wilderness connote? Safety. Wilderness connotes refuge. So in making every effort to protect the environment and the surrounding ecosystem in King Cove, Congress unintentionally endangered the lives of those living in King Cove when it created the wilderness area. So, what we are doing in Senate bill 1092, with my amendment, is righting a wrong by authorizing the one thing that we all take for granted when we are injured or when we want access, and that is a road. We do not want a paved highway, we want a little gravel road--that is it--a road to safety, Mr. President, a road to life. Fourteen people have died. You know why they have died? Because there has not been a road. Fourteen people in the community of 700, 710 people. These are Aleuts. They have been there for 5,000 years. How many more lives are we going to be sacrificing for the bureaucracy to study alternatives until they can be provided with the access they so rightly deserve? They have paid for this access, Mr. President, in blood. And this is an access that you and I take for granted daily. The designation of ``wilderness'' was never meant to prevent people from safe access to medical care, and I think we would all agree it would be absurd to argue otherwise. My constituents, your friends, some of the people that you have all met with, the Aleut people who visited in Washington, DC, I think deserve an opportunity to save their lives in times of emergencies. They should not be held hostage to fear for life and limb by an administration or a Congress that somehow is carrying the water for some of the righteous self-interest groups. This is the situation we have. In the end, those who vote with the people of King Cove may or may not be on the winning side of this issue but they will certainly be on the right side of the issue. Mr. President, how much time have I used?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The U.S. Weather Bureau notes that Cold Bay is the third most windy city in the United States; the third most rainy, with 226 inches; and it is the cloudiest; and for 305 days a year it is cloudy in King Cove-Cold Bay.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will proceed under the theory that one picture is worth 1,000 words, although I am not suggesting that you are not going to get 1,000 words, as well. In any event, in order to set the stage for the debate on King Cove, I think it necessary to educate and familiarize the Members of this body as to what this issue is, where it is, and why it is so important to the residents of the small community of King Cove, on the Aleutian Islands, population 700, who have no availability of surface transportation for medical care. As a consequence of the lack of surface transportation for this community, 11 of the residents of that small community have perished in medevac flights out of the area over the last decade. I think I should also identify Senate bill 1092 that is before this body, specifically, the substitute that I have offered, which exchanges surface estate. The substitute that I offer exchanges the surface estate of some of the higher value wetlands privately owned by one of the Native village corporations in King Cove within the refuge in exchange for a simple grant of right-of-way across Federal lands that would allow the residents of King Cove reliable access to the Cold Bay Airport; hence, medical care when emergencies exist. Further, we are not asking for an appropriation. I think it is fair to note that there are no funds requested. This is simply an authorization for land exchange, something that is ordinarily done within the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, which I chair, on a daily basis. The real concern here is the people of King Cove. Now, many of the Members of this body have had an opportunity to meet with the Aleut residents of King Cove as they visited Washington, DC, as they visited Members' offices and made a unique appeal, an appeal based on the rigors of living in a wilderness area with a harsh environment, and the experiences they have had in not being able to avail themselves of the transportation system that ensures that they can safely get to hospitals for medical assistance when there is an emergency. As I said, 11 residents of my State have already died flying into or out of the area. Many of them were seeking to get badly needed medical attention in an emergency. Still others died while waiting on the ground for weather to clear enough to attempt to make these potential life-saving flights. Let me show Members what part of Alaska we are talking about. Alaska is a pretty big chunk of real estate. We have 33,000 miles of coastline. Of course, Juneau, our capital, sits here. Anchorage, our largest city, is at the head of Cook Inlet, roughly in this area. Fairbanks, where my home is, is in the interior. Point Barrow is adjacent to the Arctic Ocean. Prudhoe Bay is on the Beaufort Sea. But we have another area on the Aleutian Islands and this area extends almost to Japan. This area includes the community of King Cove which is on the Pacific Ocean side. Across a small base is the area where we have a large airport that was left over from World War II. To identify the specific area on a scale map, we can see Cold Bay here, and then King Cove here. We have unique weather patterns spawned as a consequence of the Japanese current moving along the Aleutian Islands and clashing with the cold, interior Bering Sea, creating some of the worst weather in the world. No question it has been documented as such. We have the village of King Cove, 700 people year-round, and a small industry associated with fish packing, freezing and processing. Then we have a large complex built during World War II, consisting of crosswind runways. I will show pictures of runways in Cold Bay and King Cove. Let me show the first picture which shows a gravel strip, about 3,700 feet, which is the access for the residents of King Cove. There is a road that goes along the side of the mountain. That is the road that comes in from the village. The interesting thing about this and the location is this is the best they could do for an airfield because of the topography and the realization that the winds are extraordinary in this area. There are numerous cases of pilots landing in small single or twin-engines with the wind sock at one end blowing one way and the wind sock at the other end blowing the other way. That is the harsh reality because the wind from the Bering Sea comes one way, the winds from the Pacific Ocean come the other. They simply clash over this area and create this extraordinary complexity of winds. It is not necessarily fog, it is not necessarily heavy snowfall, it is tremendous turbulence in wind. Here is another airfield located at Cold Bay. This was part of the effort during the Second World War in preparation for the invasion of Japan, to build this large facility, over 11,000 feet, the main runway. The population here is about 130 people. Most are Government employees with the FAA, operating this runway. This is also a backup for an emergency, should any of the space shuttles have to land in this particular area based on their orbits. The point is, there is daily jet service into Anchorage from here. I think there was only 1 day last year where the winds were such that they couldn't bring in aircraft. This is how you go from King Cove to Cold Bay to start your visit to Anchorage to visit with friends or to get out, if you will, of King Cove to go virtually anywhere. You have to go over here. The only way to get there is to fly. If you are in an emergency situation, you have another set of facts. The point is this runway represents reliability in transport. You see these little roads here around Cold Bay that have been in existence since the Second World War. It is interesting to note that there are some 32 to 47 miles of roads that are in the wilderness. Make no mistake. I have driven the roads. They are there. They are not maintained because there is little maintenance necessary for them. But they are drivable. They are drivable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others. Let me proceed with some more pictures because I promised to give you an opportunity for a feeling for this area relative to pictures that have been taken over an extended period of time. Now, I want to show the land area and the proposed road so we can get an idea of what we are talking about here in relationship to the issue. The colors in solid brown are the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. That is this area here. Then we have the wilderness areas in the checkered brown with the white in it. You can see it is extensive, but it is not conclusive in that it connects. There is the major portion here, and then over toward Cold Bay there is another area, and there has been an area that has been left aside down here. So the wilderness areas don't connect together. The existing roads are worth evaluating a little bit, Mr. President, because they cover roads not only in the wilderness up here, which are drivable, but they go into the wildlife range where you can go and photograph and you can hunt geese. They go into the wilderness area here. The proposal now is to have a road from King Cove to Cold Bay. That is the issue. In order to bring that road around, you have to go into that area of wilderness because you can't cross the bay because of the water depth and the costs associated with the bridge, and we are really dealing with 700 people now. So what are the alternatives? I am prepared to discuss those later. It is important to know what the quid pro quo is here, because we think it is a win for the environment, with the recognition that the Native association is prepared to give their land, which is colored here in the basic green areas and the yellow areas, in exchange for access through this area. The quid pro quo is they are proposing that about 580 acres to be added to the wilderness in return for this 7 miles of road, which would be through this wilderness area. The only difference is that we are not putting it into wilderness. I have a difficult time trying to communicate this to some of the other Members and the public because we are proposing a land exchange. By this 580 acres entering into the wilderness in the exchange, as a consequence of that, we would have a situation where there would be the road in a refuge but not a wilderness. By adding to the wilderness, we have done just that, taken land that the Native corporations have--and that is private land--and added that to the wilderness, and then exchanged with these specific areas designated in white--a land exchange--putting this in a refuge. So the road will not go through a wilderness; it would go through a refuge. We have numerous occasions where there have been similar land exchanges and roads are going in refuges. This is not unique or a precedent. If you look at this area and you are concerned about waterfowl, note these two peninsulas that are privately owned by the Native corporation. They are proposing to give those and add to the wilderness. These are integral points inasmuch as they represent peninsulas and, as a consequence, the waterfowl primarily dominate through those particular areas. So this is the route of the proposed road. We are not asking for funding. No appropriation here. This is a land exchange only to benefit the people of King Cove. And, hopefully, the question is, how many more lives do we have to lose before we get some relief? I want to go through some of the other charts, in general, to give you an idea of why some of the alternatives suggested by others simply don't work. This is a photo of Izembek when there is a storm. I don't know if you have ever been terrified, but I have. I have been out in boats in some of these storms. This is how you get from King Cove to Cold Bay across Izembek when there is a storm. And these are real storms. We have cases where a pregnant woman is put aboard a fishing boat in a storm like this. She gives birth to the child in the galley, and they have to open the oven and make an incubator out of tin foil and the child survives. I will show other pictures of just what kind of bodies of water we are talking about. Mind you, the uniqueness here is that you have Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea on one side and the Pacific Ocean, and this is the area where all the storms basically are initiated on the west coast and down to California. This photo shows Izembek Bay in a storm. How would you like to subject yourself to that? You and I are accustomed to taking a road to the hospital and having access to some reasonable way, without having to subject yourself to conditions likes this. Somebody said, ``Well, what happens on a clear day?'' That depends on what season you are in. This photo happens to depict the wintertime when the bay is frozen over. That is factual. There is your ambulance in the wintertime. How would you like to try that? That is the harsh reality that happens at certain times in the winter. You are not going to move a Hovercraft over that, and you are certainly not going to move a boat. What happens sometimes is that they do have a vessel in, and they try to move people from a small boat up to the dock, and they move them in a cargo net. How would you like to get off your boat and into a cargo net under those conditions? That is living in rural Alaska today. It is the harsh reality. We have some other pictures that I want to show you relative to the harsh reality of living in Alaska. These are people who have died because there was no access out of King Cove. This is Tom Phillips, who lost a leg in a boating accident. He died in a plane crash in a medevac airplane trying to fly into Cold Bay. Christine Dushkin suffered a heart attack and died of exertion while climbing onto a Cold Bay dock from a small boat. Mary Dobson suffered from frequent seizures but could not get timely medical care during bad weather. Darien Gorsinger, a community leader, died in a plane crash while evacuating an injured Seattle fisherman. Walter Samuelson waited 3 days after a heart attack to get out of King Cove. Sarina Bear, who was born prematurely on a fishing boat, lost half of her body weight on a 3-hour fishing boat trip to Cold Bay. Earnest Mack died in Anchorage after 4 days of delay while trying to get out of King Cove. Kathy Hoff, a King Cove nurse, died in a plane crash on a Medicare mission out of King Cove. John Datolli, a bush pilot, died in a plane on a medical mission to King Cove. This is the harsh reality and the situation as it exists. Some suggest, let's do another study, let's look for another alternative. In the meantime, my constituents are dying. I know how you would feel if they were your constituents. Here are some headlines from some of our Anchorage newspapers, the Anchorage Daily News and the Anchorage Times: ``Six Killed in a Plane Crash,'' ``Plane on Mercy Mission Crashes; 4 Believed Dead,'' ``Four Die in Cold Bay Crash,'' ``Plane Hits Hillside at King Cove; 6 Die,'' ``Pilot Dies In Crash.'' This happens because it is really tough out there. It is so tough, as a matter of fact, that the people are saying, let us have the opportunity that other Americans enjoy, which is access by road. This is the road in this photo, Mr. President. That is what they look like. These were roads that were built during the Second World War. There is so little traffic that there is very little maintenance. This sign over here is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife sign. That goes over to Outer Point. I go out there virtually every Columbus Day, unlike my good friend, whom I have the utmost respect for, who has never been there. He has never experienced it. I have. This is what we are talking about. These are the roads that are out there. Here is another picture. This is the topography of the area, what the country looks like. It is flat. It is barren. There are no trees. There is grass. There are lots of ponds. There are lots of birds that come through in the fall. They move on. You can go on these roads. You can take an old 4X4 and wander around and see the country. Mind you, these roads are in the wilderness, 47 miles of them. When you say we are driving through the heart of the Izembeck Wilderness with this road connection, you are not facing reality. These roads are already there. They are not all of the wilderness. I will show you where these roads are, because we have a detailed map which shows the road in and out of the wilderness. It gives you an idea. These aren't highways we are building. They are not superhighways. They are just an adequate road that you can take a 4X4 over, recognizing that when you put a little gravel around and maybe have four or five cars a week, it is not very much traffic. But depending on the circumstances, at least somebody can get out. This is an aerial picture of the topography of the general area and what we are looking at. I think it is important that you reflect on what the area looks like today. This is a little difficult to see, but I am going to do the best I can, because it is in black and white. It is an aerial photograph. It is an official photograph. It is not something that has been doctored up or lines have been drawn in. But this general area down here is the edge of the Cove Bay runway, and these are the roads in black that go through the general area. These are the roads that wander in through the wilderness designation. This is the line right here, the boundary. The wilderness is on this side. All of these roads are in the wilderness. They are already there. What we are proposing is simply an extension of this road of 7 miles to go in with a land exchange--taking the area out of the wilderness, putting it in the refuge, and putting a road extension in. We are not asking for any money, we are simply asking for an exchange and an authorization; that is it. Here are the existing roads that wander over here. Here is another wilderness boundary over here, a little chunk over here. There are roads to the west of that. When I go out there goose hunting, we usually wander out here, or wander up through here in the wilderness, and go out over here--any number of places that are there. To suggest that we are creating something that is not there is totally unrealistic and unfounded. Again, I want to go through the remainder of the charts, because I think you are beginning to get a feel for what the country looks like and what we are up against. Hopefully the staff, who has not practiced this, will make sure that we show all the other charts before we get into some of the things that the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Arkansas take for granted that are unavailable in Alaska. While they are going through some more of the visuals, let me make a couple more points. What has happened to our Native people when wilderness boundaries and refuges have been designated is that the concerns of the people have basically been overlooked. The Aleut people have lived in King Cove for over 5,000 years. The substitute that I offer today would provide relief for access. That is really all we are talking about. We are talking about appealing to real people who have a need that others in the United States enjoy. We are somewhat isolated in Alaska. We have four time zones down here. We have three. I think we are about 5,000 miles from Washington, DC, to Alaska. The area of King Cove is about 1,700 miles from Seattle, 632 miles west of Anchorage. In fact, it is interesting to note that it is twice as far from here to King Cove as it is from Tokyo to King Cove. That gives you some idea of the isolation. I have indicated that the weather conditions out there are such that we have the uniqueness of wind sheer turbulence and what we call venturi wind conditions, which makes flying a real experience. When you add this to the fact that it is a mountainous area with sharp valleys, you find conditions for what we have had in a series of disasters. As I have indicated, on that 3,300-foot runway you have wind blowing at either side. You might say, ``Well, the Senator from Alaska is exaggerating. That can't occur all the time.'' It occurs almost every day, Mr. President. It can occur for days on end. It can occur for weeks on end. Sometimes a week or 10 days will go by before they can get a flight in and out of King Cove, if one can wait. This is simply an inconvenience which Alaskans accept, however, since the main livelihood of the Aleutian people is derived from fishing in the treacherous seas of Bristol Bay. Medical evacuations are a common occurrence. Surprisingly enough, they happen twice as much in this community as any other place in Alaska. With only the help of midlevel practitioners, help in an emergency must be sought in other locations. This is not a concept that many in this body are familiar with. We take for granted health care. It is only a few steps away. Certainly this is the case where we are right now in most of our hometowns. But out in the Aleutian Chain, it is not that simple. Let me interrupt for a moment to comment on a few things. This is a sign that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife puts out as an advisory. This is our Government speaking, not me. It says: Visitors [to the area] should bring extra food and rain gear should weather close in. This is in the refuge advisory: The refuge is famous for inclement weather, usually in the form of wind, rain, and fog. Fog, drizzle, and overcast skies are often succeeded by violent storms and bitter cold snaps that slow down all activity. It is not unusual for an entire year to go by with only a few days of clear skies. I don't know what that means to anybody. But it puts you on notice. Let's see how residents of Arkansas and Montana access health care. I readily admit I do not know all the specifics of health care in these states, but I do know how to make up a chart. I do know how to make a point. Here are the major hospitals in Montana and their accessibility by State and Federal highways. The green lines are the U.S. interstate highways, the red lines are the U.S. highways, and the black are the Montana State routes. Every place you see an ``H,'' you see a major hospital. Hopefully, I haven't missed any. But I am sure my friend from Montana would be happy to correct me if I have. But the point is, the people of Montana have access to health care in an emergency. Let's wander over to a Southern State. My friend from Arkansas and I have had conversations about this. I know how he feels about equity. Here are the major hospitals in Arkansas accessible by Federal highway. I would be happy to show this a little closer if there is any difficulty in seeing it. These are the hospitals in the State of Arkansas on the road systems. There are 10 hospitals, I am told, in Little Rock. The point is the residents in the State of Arkansas have access by road to health care. Now, these are hospitals that have facilities to take care of emergencies. Let's look at Alaska when we talk about cases of dire emergencies. We have Anchorage. Here is health care in Alaska. These are hospitals with critical care units. We have one in Anchorage, AK, an area one-fifth the size of the United States, and an area that has 33,000 miles of coastline--a big hunk of real estate. The Senator from Texas is not here so I won't comment that it is two-and-a-half times the size of Texas. I might lose his support. This is our road system--a little bit on the Seward Peninsula around Nome, Teller, a road from Prudhoe Bay down through Fairbanks, down to Valdez, Anchorage, Homer, Kenai, a little bit of road in southeastern Alaska. Anchorage is our area of primary critical care. So when you have a situation in a village out here at King Cove in the Aleutian Islands, you need access to it. You need access to an airport where you can get an airplane, a jet airplane into Anchorage which is 600 miles away. So things are not that simple in Alaska. They are tough. We have a first-rate Alaska Native hospital available to the Aleut residents of King Cove in Anchorage, but it might as well be on the dark side of the Moon if you can't get there. As I have indicated, we have had 11 air crash fatalities flying residents out of King Cove, trying to get some of them to lifesaving medical attention. We talk a lot about telemedicine, and I am an avid supporter of telemedicine. But the realities of telemedicine are that it depends on whether you have adequate personnel where you need it to communicate the symptoms and take action, and then if it is too bad you need more than telemedicine. If it is bad, you need access. How are you going to cross a bay that is uncrossable by boat in the wintertime because it is frozen or the storms are so great you can't cross it because of the high winds? Well, let's talk about helicopters. I have nothing but the highest admiration for our Coast Guard, National Guard and those courageous people who are out there providing rescues, but there is some uniqueness associated with the Cold Bay area, and that is something that the helicopters have a problem with, and that is extreme turbulence. The helicopters do very well in heavy winds, but it is the turbulence that creates problems. And it is important to note that threatening conditions in King Cove arise at unknown times. Pregnant women in King Cove often leave the village 6 weeks before they are due in order to make sure they are able to be near medical facilities in case complications arise. A woman by the name of Carol Kenezuroff went into premature labor. She was unable to fly out of King Cove due to weather conditions. She decided to make the treacherous trip by boat. It took 2\1/2\ hours in an 80-foot crab boat. One hour into the trip Carol gave birth to a 2- pound-3-ounce girl on the galley table of that crab boat in a 10-foot sea. The baby's name was Sirena. She lived only because someone on the crab boat had presence of mind to make a makeshift incubator out of aluminum foil and put it near the oil stove. The story isn't over yet, Mr. President, because the mother had to be offloaded twice from the boat in a sling because her IV tubes had got caught in the dock pilings of the unprotected harbor of Cold Bay. Do you know of anybody who had that kind of situation? Well, it happened in the State of Alaska. By the time the baby made it to Anchorage, it had already lost half its body weight and barely survived the ordeal. This is the harsh reality of life in King Cove, but it does not have to be that harsh. There is a solution to assure safe travel and a solution that is opposed by some of the special interest groups. I really question their justification because you cannot say that this is a road through the heart of the wilderness. This isn't a road through the wilderness. We are doing a land exchange. It is a road through a refuge, isn't it? It is a plus for the wilderness, isn't it, because we are adding 580 acres. This is a win-win-win, but the special interest groups on the other side can't see it that way because they have gone off, in my opinion, the deep end and simply said, no, we are not going to allow this exchange--not because it is not good for the environment by adding 580 acres to the wilderness. I can only assume for one selfish reason, they have a cause that generates money and membership. But I am not going to spend a lot of time on that. The point is 30 miles as the crow flies from King Cove is the all- weather runway at Cold Bay, and all these people want is access to that 10,400-foot runway where a Reeve Aleutian Island Jet 727-100 comes in every day, except once last year when it could not get in because of weather conditions. And I might add, in deference, the only day they don't fly is Sunday. But medevac aircraft from Anchorage can get in there. This road would total only about 29 miles. Now, remember, where would the road be? Whose land would it be on? Well, here it is, the green area. It is on land owned by the King Cove Native Village Corporation. Just roughly 7 to 8 miles of the road would be in the massive 300,000 acre--there it is, 300,000 acres. Only if this bill passes, it is not 300,000. It is 300,580 because we are adding to the wilderness. That is what makes this thing a win-win-win for the wilderness--only 7 miles-- this portion here--would not be in wilderness, but the refuge. Again, I want to make it clear because those who don't want to understand it refuse to acknowledge we are not putting a road in a wilderness. We are doing what we have done hundreds of times before, a land exchange--allowing a road in the refuge where we have numerous roads in this country. Now, because the 7 or 8 miles of the proposed right-of-way are currently located in the wilderness, I think it is pretty clear that is why some of the groups have opposed it. But what they fail to tell you again--and I would emphasize, and I hate to be repetitive--this area already has 42 miles of existing road. Of that 42 miles of existing road--and I want to bring that chart back up again, because I want to make this point--of the 42 miles of existing roads, we already have 12 or 14 that are already in the wilderness. You can drive on them. Take a 4x4--that is a 4-wheel-drive vehicle, all-terrain--and wander out in them anytime you want. Mr. President, 13.7 miles, to be exact, of road, are already in the wilderness. You can go out and drive on it, and I am going to be driving on it over Columbus Day. What they fail to tell you is that this is a 60-foot, if that--a gravel road, not a highway. Let us show the picture again of what we are talking about. The Senator from Montana showed a highway the other day when he brought this matter up. ``This is what we are going to build. We are going to build a highway.'' Come on, let's quit kidding each other and the American public. And I might add, we are not asking a red cent from the taxpayer. This is the kind of road it is. That is what it is. That is all it is. There is no McDonald's on it, no supermarkets. A plain old road. We still have those in Alaska--plain old roads, nothing fancy. A grader might go over it once a year. To suggest that somehow the snow is going to stop a 4- wheel drive from going on a bad day? Let me tell you, when it is turbulent, the airplanes don't fly but the cars creep along the little old road very nicely. You say there are going to be avalanches. Does it look like avalanche country to you? There are a few areas on the other side where there are some hills, but there is not going to be an avalanche. ``You will have snowdrifts.'' You do not have a lot of snow out there. You have blowing snow and winds, but the roads that are there now, the 47 miles of road, are open virtually all winter. You do not have a situation where you have, like Valdez, AK, where you have 25 or 30 feet of snow. That does not occur. This is a maritime climate but it is tough on wind. So to suggest a road will not work is unrealistic, because the roads that are there do work. Mr. President, 130 people in Cold Bay traverse on them, as they keep the airport open year around in Cold Bay. I was using 580 acres, and I was wrong. This exchange adds 664 acres to the wilderness. The Native people are giving up their private land in return for access through a refuge. It is a win-win-win for the wilderness and the environmentalists, if they can just figure it out. Again, this substitute that I offer would adjust the boundary to include 664 acres of the private King Cove Native lands, and it would remove 85 acres from the wilderness in the exchange for the 7 miles of road. One other thing here, lest we forget--the ``great white father.'' The ``great white father'' of public lands, in our State, is the Secretary of the Interior. He controls utilization. And we propose that for this section, this section specifically, if it is authorized and someday built, that the Secretary would have the ability to regulate the use of the road during migratory periods. How much more authority? If the concern is migration, OK, there is a concern. If you have concern about migration, don't allow hunting in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows hunting. We obey the rules and they allow it out there. One of the most significant areas in Alaska is Cordova. You have the flats of Cordova; you have a road that runs out to the Cordova River, right through the flats. It is a huge nesting area with many endangered species and an airport in the middle of it, and there is no problem at all. Do you ever see any geese on the golf courses around here? They even allow hunting on the golf course, they have so many geese. To suggest this is going to be detrimental to the migratory bird pattern is absolutely ridiculous. There is no justification for that at all, because the roads are already there. There is so little traffic on them. There is not likely to be a mass movement from Washington, DC, to King Cove or Cold Bay. Believe me. This is a Native area, and the Native population have had the ability to generate a little activity with their little cannery and their little cold storage plant. But what they have not been able to do is to generate any interest in the Congress of the United States supporting a little land exchange so they can enjoy access to a road. They are prepared to take care of themselves, if they can simply have access to their airport. Let's talk about precedent one more time, because I am sure the opponents will say, ``Oh, you are setting a precedent. You are setting a precedent.'' First of all, I thank those Members who were willing to see the people of King Cove during their visits here in Washington, DC, the Aleut people themselves, because they can express their desires and positions much better than I can. I would like to recognize here an old friend who just snuck into the Chamber, who shall remain nameless; is that fair enough? Thanks, Bob. Speaking of precedents, rather than Presidents--which we almost had here, but I am getting off the subject so I better get back to the business at hand--I think many of my colleagues have been wrongfully led to believe this provision which we propose would set a precedent in setting or allowing roads to be built through wilderness areas. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I can assure you, this is absolutely false. There is no precedent to be set by this provision. First, plainly and simply, this provision does not authorize construction of a road or authorize construction of a road in a wilderness. One more time: It simply adjusts the wilderness boundary, and that adds 664 acres of private land, private Native land, in exchange for withdrawing 85 acres that will be used for a road corridor and a refuge. None of the corridor will be in a refuge portion. It will be in the wilderness portion of the refuge. I want to get to the point. Wilderness boundary adjustments are commonplace. They are done for numerous reasons. Last year I was instrumental in passing the Presidio legislation, which included, among other things, wilderness boundary adjustments. In one wilderness area we withdrew 73,000 acres of wilderness and added back 56,000 acres, for a net loss to the wilderness of 17,000 acres. That was in the Anaktuvuk Pass. Prior to that, Congress--and I think my colleague from Montana will note--deleted 28 acres from the U.L. Bend Wilderness Area in the State of Montana to allow for access, to allow for access through a wildlife refuge wilderness area. What for? To a fishing area near Fort Peck Reservoir. In other words, to a fishing hole. I am not complaining. I figure the folks in Montana know what is best for them and the Senators from Montana know what is best for their citizens. That is why I am kind of amused that this body has denigrated itself, if you will, to a situation where--you know, it used to be the Senators from the State knew what was good for their State and they were going to be judged by their constituents and held accountable. But we have moved away from that now because of the special interest groups, and we have Members who have never been to my State dictating the terms and conditions under which my people have to live. They resent that, and so do I, because they do not know what the people who are living there are really experiencing because they have not experienced it. The constituents in Arkansas and Montana have not experienced it, but I have. I can tell you, it is real. We have had examples where Congress has created roads in wilderness areas. In fact, when the Izembek Refuge Wilderness Area was created in 1980, it was created with existing roads in the wilderness. I don't raise these examples to advocate that wilderness boundaries should be subjected to change at whim. I am not doing that. What we are proposing is a net increase of nearly 600 acres of wilderness. If we have changed wilderness boundaries for such things as access to a recreation area or, in the case of Montana, to a fishing hole, then I can't understand why in the world it is not appropriate to change a wilderness boundary into a refuge to save lives. It is pretty basic, Mr. President. There is no truth to the claim that this is precedent setting. Some people question why this right-of-way needs to be granted now when the State is currently undergoing a process to determine a preferred alternative between improved air safety, ground transportation, whatever. Why is the right-of-way needed if it is not yet known that this will be the State's preferred alternative? These are valid questions. They deserve a valid response. First, one has to understand this issue is not new. A road connecting King Cove and Cold Bay was recommended in the preferred alternative of the 1985 Bristol Bay management plan done cooperatively with the State and Federal Government. Second, in 1995, ground transportation between these two communities was listed as the State's third highest priority project for rural Alaska by the current Governor. If you look at the map that shows the health care areas in the State--I want you to look at that a little bit more because it shows the road system in the State. We don't have roads in the State. We are the new kid on the block. We have been a State since 1959--39 years ago. That is what we have. Look at Arkansas and look at Montana. We are not asking for an awful lot here. In fact, it is a bit embarrassing for me to have to come and plead for the lives of the people in this village. That is our road system, Mr. President, an area one-fifth the size of the United States, an area that, if superimposed on a map of the United States, superimposed in a comparative dimension, goes from Mexico, to Canada, to Florida, to California, with the extension of these Aleutian Islands. It is a big piece of real estate. I find it difficult to have to beg, if you will, for consideration here, but I guess that is what I am doing. For a people who have occupied this area for 5,000 years and have looked at every option, it makes sense to have a ground link. These people have lived, have survived a lot longer than you and I. They fish the waters and hunt the land. Sometimes they fly the skies, and sometimes they die. It is interesting to note, too--I will point out on one of the maps of the Cold Bay area--that they have traversed this area through this so-called wilderness on foot trapping in the wintertime and hunting. This is nothing new, and they are still doing it. But these are the people who have the most at stake in protecting the region's resources. Think about that. These are the residents--they are subsistence people, to a degree. They know how to protect the fish, the game, the geese, the endangered species. The problem with the bureaucracy is this thing can crawl on --do more studies. But the people want some assurance at the end of this process. Without the legislation before us, there is no end in sight, because what this legislation does is it simply authorizes a land exchange. That is all it does. In testimony before Congress, the Fish and Wildlife Service was asked the question: If through this comprehensive study that is underway the preferred alternative is, indeed, a road link, would they support it? They simply said no. They didn't give a reason; they just said no. They didn't acknowledge there were roads already in the wilderness. By granting the right-of-way now, a road link will remain a viable alternative. It will give the State the option. Why shouldn't the State have the option for Heaven's sake? It is our State. By granting this right-of-way now, a road to safety, what we are doing is appropriate and timely, and I guess tardy in some respects, and providing an opportunity for the people of King Cove to have access. I promised to comment, since we are not limited to time currently, on a couple of other options because I know these are going to come up in the debate. I know that others will insist there be other ways to resolve the problems of King Cove without granting ground access. We have already talked about telemedicine. I know that the people of King Cove welcome the technology and the advancements telemedicine is going to add, but it is not the solution. Telemedicine is a diagnostic tool. We may be in a better position to diagnose a heart attack or a partial amputation, but we will be no better off to treat it without the ability to safely transport people to modern medical facilities. Our largest hospital, Providence Hospital, in Anchorage stated it best recently when referring to telemedicine: It will be especially helpful in providing better consultations to enhance a provider's knowledge and help her or him make a better decision about transport. However, it will never, ever eliminate the need for emergency transport to an acute care facility, and that is what the road between King Cove and Cold Bay is all about. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Providence Hospital be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may ask this: Does the Senator know where that road actually is that he showed there? I have never seen anything like it. I don't know where it is.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object, if I may, for just a moment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The maps we have are the same thing and show the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sign. There is a notable difference in the road.

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

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The other side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see my good friend is on the floor, the Senator from Tennessee. I note that he is the only physician in the Senate and is certainly eminently qualified with his wealth of knowledge on health issues. We have discussed issues today relative to health care. He has expressed opinions on everything from tobacco to children's health care. But I think it is important to recognize that he is an experienced and qualified trauma surgeon. I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee would care to discuss the certain medical issues that are relevant to this debate and relevant to the timing of the debate and those who experience severe accidents to get to a trained trauma center with adequate personnel.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am told there are other Senators still wishing to speak on the bill, so I ask, how much time is remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: Mr. Brian Malnak, David Dye, Joe Meuse, Jim Beirne and Mark Rey during the pending debate on S. 1092.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senator from California would like to take a few minutes to discuss a matter of great importance to her. And since we have not addressed the time, I have no objection with the assumption that I be recognized upon the conclusion of her remarks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me commend the senior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Levin for having completed work on this important conference report on the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I particularly want to express my appreciation to Senator Thurmond and Senator Warner and their staff for working with me and my staff to address the provision that the House of Representatives had attempted to include (section 1216) which would have negatively impacted the export capabilities of U.S. vendors of civilian nuclear power equipment. I am pleased to say that the Senate conferees were able to replace the House language regarding nuclear exports with an acceptable notification requirement in Section 1523. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues are aware, the House of Representatives had added language that would have changed the reporting requirements for nuclear exports and added a congressional disapproval process. The change in the export law contemplated by the House of Representatives was unwise and unnecessary. A change in the reporting requirements was unnecessary because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission closely regulates the export activities of U.S. nuclear vendors. The nuclear export licensing process by law requires not only public notice of export license applications as soon as they are received by the N.R.C., but also the opportunity for public intervention with the N.R.C. prior to issuance of a license. Moreover, the N.R.C. is not allowed to issue an export license for any nuclear equipment and technology unless the government of the recipient nation has negotiated, signed and implemented a bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United States. Such agreements provide the United States with a broad array of inspection rights and control over the fuel cycle. I am unaware of any allegations that, under this regime, the United States has exported any nuclear material or technology which has been diverted for military or proliferation purposes. Since our export control system appears to be working, it is difficult to see why it should be altered or supplemented. A change in the reporting requirements was unwise because it would negatively impact U.S. exporters of civilian nuclear power equipment without advancing any national security goal. Although the author of the provision made clear that his proposal was designed to add restrictions to trade in civilian nuclear power equipment and technology with China, it would have impacted many other countries, including Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Taiwan who purchase U.S. nuclear goods. I am convinced that, faced with new restrictions, all these countries would be extremely reluctant to deal with U.S. suppliers. Certainly, European and Canadian suppliers would use such new restrictions as part of their commercial armory to argue that, for these countries, dealing with U.S. suppliers is complex, time absorbing, and subject to political whims, while their procedures are simple and straightforward. Some members may want to block trade with China in civilian nuclear goods and technology. But, my colleagues should recall that President Clinton sent to Congress the certifications necessary to implement the Reagan Administration's 1985 Agreement for U.S.-China Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation on January 27, 1998. The Congress considered those certifications for 30 legislative days, as provided by law. Existing law provided the opponents of the certifications with every opportunity to challenge the Administration's determination. However, no attempt was made to pass a resolution of disapproval of those certifications, and consequently, the 1985 Agreement went into effect on March 19, 1998. Any changes made after the fact would be seen as aimed at impeding or delaying such cooperation and, as such, could seriously undercut the non-proliferation assurances China provided as a condition of implementing the nuclear cooperation agreement. Moreover, as a matter of principle, moving the goalposts regarding certification after the fact is unfair. Mr. President, again, I want to thank the managers for their assistance on this important matter.