[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11240-S11269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                KING COVE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3676

           (Purpose: Amendment in the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3676.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``King Cove Health and Safety 
     Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (a) King Cove, Alaska is a community in the westernmost 
     region of the Alaska Peninsula with a population of roughly 
     800 full-

[[Page S11241]]

     time residents and an additional 400 to 600 workers who are 
     transported in and out of the community a number of times a 
     year to work in the local fish processing plant and on 
     fishing vessels;
       (b) the majority of the full-time residents are indigenous 
     Native peoples of Aleut ancestry that have resided in the 
     region for over 5,000 years;
       (c) the only mode of access to or from King Cove is via 
     small aircraft or fishing boat, and the weather patterns are 
     so severe and unpredictable that King Cove is one of the 
     worst places in all of the United States to access by either 
     of these modes of transportation;
       (d) the State of Alaska has initiated the King Cove to Cold 
     Bay Transportation Improvement Assessment to confirm the need 
     for transportation improvements for King Cove and to identify 
     alternative methods of improving transportation access with 
     comprehensive environmental and economic review of each 
     alternative;
       (e) the State of Alaska has identified a road between King 
     Cove and Cold Bay as one of the alternatives to be evaluated 
     in the transportation planning process but for a road to be a 
     viable option for the State of Alaska, the Congress must 
     grant a legislative easement within the Izembek National 
     Wildlife Refuge (``Refuge'') across approximately seven miles 
     of wilderness land owned by the Federal Government;
       (f) there are fourteen miles of roads within the wilderness 
     boundary of the Refuge which are currently traveled by 
     vehicles;
       (g) any road constructed in accordance with such easement 
     would be an unpaved, one-lane road sufficient in width to 
     satisfy State law; and
       (h) the combined communities of King Cove and Cold Bay have 
     approximately 250 vehicles.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to establish a surface 
     transportation easement across Federal lands within the 
     Refuge and to transfer 664 acres of high value habitat lands 
     adjacent to the Refuge in fee simple from the King Cove 
     Corporation to the Federal Government as new wilderness lands 
     within the Refuge in exchange for redesignating a narrow 
     corridor of land within the Refuge as nonwilderness lands.

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE.

       If the King Cove Corporation offers to transfer to the 
     United States all right, title, and interest of the 
     Corporation in and to all land owned by the Corporation in 
     Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of T 57 S, R 88 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska; and any improvements thereon, the Secretary 
     of the Interior (``Secretary'') shall, not later than 30 days 
     after such offer, grant the Aleutians East Borough a 
     perpetual right-of-way of 60 feet in width through the lands 
     described in sections 6 and 7 of this Act for the 
     construction, operation and maintenance of certain utility-
     related fixtures and of a public road between the city of 
     Cold Bay, Alaska, and the city of King Cove, Alaska and 
     accept the transfer of the offered lands. Upon transfer to 
     the United States, such lands shall be managed in accordance 
     with Section 1302(i) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act, shall be included within the Refuge, and 
     shall be managed as wilderness.

     SEC. 5. RIGHT-OF-WAY.

       Unless otherwise agreed to be the Secretary and the 
     Aleutians East Borough, the right-of-way granted under 
     section 4 shall--
       (1) include sufficient lands for logistical staging areas 
     and construction material sites used for the construction and 
     maintenance of an unpaved, one-lane public road sufficient in 
     width to meet the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy 
     State law;
       (2) meet all requirements for a public highway right-of-way 
     under the laws of the State of Alaska; and
       (3) include the right for the Aleutians East Borough, or 
     its assignees to construct, operate, and maintain electrical, 
     telephone, or other utility facilities and structures within 
     the right-of-way.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING CHANGE.

       Upon the offer of Corporation lands under section 4, the 
     boundaries of the wilderness area within the Refuge are 
     modified to exclude from wilderness designation a 100 foot 
     wide corridor to acommodate the right-of-way within the 
     following land sections--
       (1) Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 
     30, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
       (2) Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, 
     R 88 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
       (3) Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 of T 57 S, R 89 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska.

     SEC. 7. RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATION.

       Unless otherwise agreed to by the Secretary and the 
     Aleutians East Borough, the right-of-way granted under 
     section 4 shall be located within--
       (a) sections 2, 3, 10, and 11 of T 59 S, R 86 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska;
       (b) sections 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of T 59 
     S, R 86 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (c) sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 
     and 36 of T 58 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (d) sections 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 32, 
     33, and 34 of T 57 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (e) sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 
     30, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (f) sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, 
     R 88 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (g) section 6 of T 37 S, R 88 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska; 
     and
       (h) sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 of T 57 S, R 89 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska.

     SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The following provisions of law shall not be applicable to 
     any right-of-way granted under section 4 of this Act or to 
     any road constructed on such right-of-way--
       (1) section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1621(g)).
       (2) title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.), except as 
     specified in this section; and
       (3) section 303(c) of title 49, United States Code.
       Sec. 9. The Secretary and the Aleutians East Borough shall 
     jointly prepare a plan setting forth--
       (1) the times of the year a road may reasonably be 
     constructed when there are not high concentrations of 
     migratory birds in Kinzarof Lagoon; and
       (2) limitations on non-emergency road traffic during 
     periods of the year when there are high concentrations of 
     migratory birds in Kinzarof Lagoon.
       Sec. 10. If within 24 months of the date the King Cove 
     Corporation offers to transfer to the United States all 
     right, title, and interest of the Corporation lands set forth 
     in Section 4 of this Act, the Secretary and the Aleutians 
     East Borough fail to mutually agree on the following--
       (1) a final land exchange and a grant of a right-of-way 
     pursuant to Section 4; and
       (2) the right-of-way specifications, and terms and 
     conditions of use set forth in sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this 
     Act.

     then the Aleutians East Borough shall have the right to 
     select a 60 foot right-of-way for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of certain utility-related 
     fixtures and of a public road from lands described in Section 
     7 of this section, and to identify logistical staging areas 
     and construction material sites within the right-of-way. If 
     an agreements is not reached within 6 months after the 
     Aleutians East Borough notifies the Secretary of its 
     selection, then the right-of-way is hereby granted to the 
     Borough.

  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

[[Page S11242]]

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,

[[Page S11243]]

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.


[[Page S11244]]


  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

[[Page S11245]]

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.

[[Page S11246]]

  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.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Providence Hospital,


                                                Anchorage, AK,

                                                   August 3, 1998.
     The value of telemedicine in the Aleutians and its 
           limitations.

     Robert Juettner,
     Aleutians East Borough, Anchorage, AK.
       The Aleutian Chain is without a doubt one of the most 
     difficult places on earth to provide quality healthcare for 
     several reasons.
       Weather is a primary factor. Transportation in emergencies 
     can be terrifying and deadly. Many lives have been lost in 
     the attempt, both patient and providers working on evacuation 
     teams. Patients lose critical time awaiting transport to 
     acute care facilities while waiting for the weather to 
     change. And providers can't get out for respite or continuing 
     education, both of which are critical for maintaining quality 
     of care and quality of life. Within the next five years, 
     trauma consults will improve in Alaska and in this region in 
     particular, but it will never completely replace transport to 
     acute care facilities when needed.
       Distance between communities 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!'' We are working on this through expanded 
     bandwidth and improved technology.
       The Aleutians represent a unique opportunity to develop 
     telemedicine and telehealth applications that would truly 
     enhance service in these under-served communities. It will be 
     especially helpful in providing better consultations to 
     enhance a provider's knowledge and help her make a better 
     decision about transport. However, it will never 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.
       Providence Health System in Alaska currently provides 
     teleradiology services to Dutch Harbor. Plans include 
     education, telehealth services such as conferencing through 
     email, alliance support and peer-to-peer communications 
     within the region. The system will carry data, voice and 
     images. This is called store-and-forward communications. 
     Communications may include real-time chats. Services will 
     provide some intercession; some better judgement calls and 
     decisions; improve isolation issues and enhance education.
       The system will not carry a human body that needs advanced 
     medical care. It may help cut the numbers of evacuations 
     through better diagnosis and consultation. It will enhance 
     medical care to this region. It will not remove the need for 
     treacherous evacuations that so often take place from King 
     Cove.
       The Providence Telemedicine Network is designed to be an 
     integral part of a regional healtcare plan. It will help 
     improve the emergency medical network over time with 
     relatively little investment by those involved. Use of 
     consistent emergency protocols means only patients requiring 
     tertiary care will be transported. Outcomes will be improved 
     care and reductions in transports. It will not eliminate 
     transport.
       For these reasons, we support the road between King Cove 
     and Cold Bay and we support the use of telemedicine 
     throughout the region.
     Kathe Boucha-Roberts,
       Director of Alliances and Telemedicine.
     Destyne E. Taft,
       Telehealth Network Coordinator.

  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.

[[Page S11247]]

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.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     Department of Transportation,


                                             U.S. Coast Guard,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1998.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of 
     July 21, 1998, in which you requested answers to the 
     following questions regarding the capabilities of the H-60 
     helicopters stationed at Kodiak.
       ``What are the operational minimums of the H-60 helicopters 
     stationed in Kodiak in terms of weather, visibility, and 
     such?'' Although Coast Guard aircraft routinely fly missions 
     in extremely challenging weather conditions, they are subject 
     to certain operational limitations. The pertinent operational 
     limitations of the H-60 helicopter include the following: 
     minimum take-off visibility of one-quarter statute miles for 
     search and rescue missions and 60 knots of wind for aircraft 
     startup.
       ``Is the H-60 an efficient helicopter in mountainous 
     terrain with extreme turbulence?'' The Coast Guard's H-60 
     helicopters are optimized for low level flight in the 
     maritime environment. As such, they are required to avoid 
     areas of moderate turbulence or greater.
       ``Do Coast Guard pilots receive flight training for land-
     based missions in mountainous terrain?'' Coast Guard pilots 
     do not receive any formal mountainous terrain flight 
     instruction, although some units operating in higher 
     elevations have developed in-house briefings to remind their 
     pilots of the inherent dangers of flying in mountainous 
     areas.
       ``Are shore-side civilian medical evacuations part of the 
     statutory authority and/or primary mission of the Coast 
     Guard?'' Shore-side civilian medical evacuations are the 
     statutory responsibility of the National Highway Traffic and 
     Safety Administration. Although not a primary mission of the 
     Coast Guard, we sometimes become involved in these types of 
     missions when assets are available and our assistance is 
     requested by an appropriate organization.
       ``If a Coast Guard helicopter was on a maritime mission and 
     a medical evacuation at King Cove was required, would it 
     abort the maritime mission?'' The decision to divert from a 
     maritime mission to a shore-side medical evacuations must be 
     made on a case-by-case basis, considering both the severity 
     of the shore-side medical condition and the nature of the 
     maritime mission.
       ``To what types of medivacs would the Coast Guard respond? 
     Would a compound fracture of a arm warrant a Coast Guard 
     response?'' When the Coast Guard receives a request for a 
     medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), flight surgeon is consulted to 
     determine if a MEDIEVAC is necessary based on the patient's 
     condition.
       Typically, conditions threatening loss of life or limb 
     would warrant a MEDEVAC. Although a compound fracture to the 
     arm would not normally justify a MEDEVAC, there may be 
     situations where a MEDEVAC is authorized based on the 
     severity of the injury, or the potential for additional 
     injury.
       You also asked whether the Coast Guard would support a 
     legislative change to require us to do shore-side medical 
     evacuations. The Coast Guard could not support such a 
     legislative change. 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 complete reevaluation of our asset siting.
       In summation, although the Coast Guard is more than happy 
     to respond to shore-side medical emergencies as time and 
     resources permit, we cannot and should not be seen as the 
     primary responder to these types of incidents.
       We hope the above information is helpful. We appreciate 
     your continued interest and support of the Coast Guard.
           Sincerely,
                                                     James M. Loy,
                            Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.

  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

[[Page S11248]]

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?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used about an hour.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that there are 6 hours equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 hours remaining, yes.
  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. BUMPERS. I yield the Senator from Montana such time as he may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I begin by first thanking my good friend 
from Alaska for bringing this up as a freestanding bill. One of the 
objections I had earlier with some of the riders in the Interior 
appropriations bill first on the merits of those provisions of the bill 
which I think in many cases were ill-advised.
  A second objection I had to the riders were just that, they were 
riders on an appropriations bill; that is, measures which have very 
significant public policy implications and very significantly affect 
our country, many of which had no hearings. It is true one or two may 
have had hearings, but, by and large, the riders did not have hearings. 
Here we are, taking them up and passing them without an adequate 
opportunity for debate.
  The American people, rightfully, get a little upset when Congress 
does not in the full light of day debate the pros and cons of issues, 
and fully air these issues. They don't like it when riders are slipped 
into an appropriations bill. I might add, there will be a lot more 
slipped in before this Congress adjourns in the next 10 days.
  I very much thank my good friend from Alaska for bringing this up as 
a freestanding bill. That is what we are supposed to be doing here, 
debating issues, what the pros might be, what the cons might be, and 
have a debate and see what makes sense and then vote. That is the 
legislative process, the way it is supposed to work, and certainly the 
way the American people would like it to work in our democratic form of 
government.
  Senator, I thank you very much. I want you to know that I very much 
appreciate your bringing this bill up as a freestanding bill. That is 
good. I wish, frankly, that the other riders in the appropriations bill 
would be brought up in the same manner.

[[Page S11249]]

  I might say at this point those who are opposed to the riders have 
not had an opportunity to move to delete them. That is because the 
appropriations bill has been withdrawn. It is no longer under 
consideration before the Senate. So at least we have an opportunity to 
debate one of those provisions, and that is the Izembek Wilderness 
issue of the King Cove--Cold Bay matter. I thank the Senator for doing 
that.
  Turning to the merits, on the surface, the argument of the good 
Senator from Alaska makes some sense. It has some merit. After all, we 
are talking about two very remote rural communities, Cold Bay and King 
Cove. They are not very far apart in miles, but they are quite far 
apart in terms of weather. There is a big bay between the two. They are 
different also because of the weather. When people are injured in King 
Cove, sometimes they may need to get to a hospital up in Cold Bay. It 
is very understandable. I appreciate that.
  In my State of Montana, we face the same problem. Very often in rural 
parts of my State people want access to medical care. They don't have 
good access. I might remind my good friend from Alaska he and I 
cosponsored a bill to grant telemedicine capability to rural States. In 
fact, we have both stated that Montana and Alaska desperately need 
better rural health care access. We have the same problem Alaska does.

  We also have crashes of medevac helicopters in Montana, just like the 
Senator from Alaska referred to in his State. We have mountains. Health 
care access is very important. I deeply sympathize with people in King 
Cove, as well as those in Cold Bay--particularly those in King Cove, 
who need access to health care. As I understand it, 11 people have died 
in plane crashes in the general area. In one case, four people were 
killed in one emergency medical evacuation. The other people lost their 
lives due to reasons other than medical evacuation.
  We have the same problems in my State. Many times, in Montana--and I 
am sure this would be true with respect to the proposed road, and it is 
true in Alaska where there are roads--the snow drifts. In the State of 
Montana, we don't get a lot of snow, believe it or not, Mr. President. 
There is a general myth in the country that, in Montana, it is cold and 
we get all kinds of snow. Our average precipitation, including rainfall 
and snow, is about 14, 15, 16 inches a year. We don't get a lot of 
snow.
  We are not like Buffalo, or like the snowbelt up in northern New 
York. We don't get a lot of snow. But when it does snow, it very often 
blows and drifts, as I am sure is the case in the State of Alaska. It 
is those drifts that stop the traffic, that cause people in smaller 
communities great difficulty in getting to a hospital. For that reason, 
we have a lot of medical assistance facilities around the State. They 
are small facilities to help people get better health care when they 
cannot immediately get to a hospital because they are so far away, 
because of bad weather, or whatever the cause.
  Sometimes we try helicopters and the medevac, but often in bad 
weather that is dangerous; it is not always a sure thing. We are also 
adding a lot of telemedicine, as many States are, for rural areas. 
Telemedicine has a very significant role in helping to provide better 
health care to our rural communities. Is it the sole answer? No, by no 
stretch of the imagination. But more and better telemedicine will 
provide better health care to a lot of areas.
  So I want to say to the Senator that I do sympathize with the need 
for health care in rural areas. It is a problem. But we have to ask 
ourselves, as almost always is the case, what is the best way to get 
health care to rural areas?
  In the first place, it is not clear that the road is the only option 
for providing better health care to the residents in King Cove, or even 
the best option for providing medical emergency services.
  A few years ago, the State of Alaska began a comprehensive study of 
transportation between King Cove and Cold Bay. It was a major study. 
That study is now examining three major alternatives to tie the two 
areas together. One is improved air transport. Another is better marine 
facilities. The third is a road. I have a copy of it here. It is the 
King Cove/Cold Bay Transportation Improvement Assessment, prepared by 
an Alaskan company in Anchorage in cooperation with Northern Economics, 
Anchorage, AK, dated November 1997. This is a draft assessment of 
transportation needs conducted by the State of Alaska, to determine 
better access to rural areas in Alaska.
  When it comes to emergency medical transportation, I must say that 
even this preliminary study shows that there is no single silver 
bullet. There is no panacea that is going to solve the problem the 
Senator addresses. After all, bad weather is bad weather--whether it is 
high winds blowing to make air transportation difficult, or whether it 
is wind blowing snowdrifts over a road. And I must say, many days of 
the year on this proposed stretch that we are talking about here, it 
may be impassable; there are snowdrifts. Sure, we have to get more 
highway equipment out there to open up the roads in the winter. 
Sometimes that can be done quickly, but sometimes not. An emergency is 
an emergency.
  Many times, in my State, roads have been impassable for long 
stretches of time--close to a day--because of snowdrifts. I would guess 
that the same could probably happen along the road we are talking about 
here. Indeed, if you talk to residents who live in the area and who 
have written letters opposing this proposed road, that is just what 
they say. It is very hard during certain times of the year to get a 
road open because of drifting snow. I have a letter here.
  (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend will yield for a question on the 
snow.
  Mr. BAUCUS. When I finish this letter. This is a letter from a 
resident of Cold Bay. She says: ``As a lifelong resident of this area, 
I have some great concerns with the proposed legislation . . .'' She 
talks about the 25 mile proposed road. ``When we are having inclement 
weather, are we to believe a vehicle could drive 27 miles in whiteout 
conditions, drifting snow, and winds?'' She says that she lived 3\1/2\ 
miles out of the town of Cold Bay for 4 years with so-called ``road 
access'' to Cold Bay. During the winter, she says she spent many months 
stranded at home, or in town, depending upon where she was when the 
storm came. She says that the drifting snow would be so bad that it 
would take days--that is probably a slight exaggeration--to get the 3.2 
miles plowed enough to be passable.
  That is not the only letter we have received. Here are some more 
letters from citizens from Cold Bay, AK. They say that in poor weather 
conditions, such as blowing snow and freezing rain, road travel becomes 
equally treacherous. On the Alaska peninsula they could only make the 
road passable seasonably. That is their view, and they live there. They 
talk about an alternative, which is mentioned in the Alaska report--a 
small ferry system--and improving the dock facility at Cold Bay. They 
go on to say that this has been studied for a while, and with state-of-
the-art navigational aids, marine transport is probably more reliable. 
I might say, that is probably true in one respect. That is because, 
actually, the weather in the bay is not as locked up with ice or as 
cold as we might be led to believe. I will get to that in just a 
second.
  I have now a letter from a doctor. He comments on the road 
alternative. He is commenting from the point of view of medical 
services in King Cove. Basically, he says that while flying is 
obviously potentially hazardous, the proposed road in an Aleutian storm 
or blizzard could be equally hazardous when one considers nearly zero 
visibility, the absence of other traffic, the long distance through 
very isolated country and, of course, the ever-present winter danger of 
avalanches.
  He went on to say that he is strongly recommending several measures 
which would result in a marked decrease in the number of medevacs. What 
he thinks would be more reliable in the event of emergencies 
necessitating medevac would be, foremost, the implementation of state-
of-the-art telemedicine. He goes on to say that another option that 
would circumvent the hazard of avalanches and of isolated highway 
transportation would be a state-of-the-art ferry system.
  That is just one view of one doctor who lives in Alaska. I am not 
saying it

[[Page S11250]]

is conclusive or determinative, but it is a view of a doctor in Alaska.
  I think we all agree telemedicine helps. I think we all agree that 
telemedicine is not the total solution. In fact, just in June of last 
year, I was very proud to have had the Senator from Alaska join me when 
we introduced the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Act. We want HCFA to 
spend up to $2 million, if we can find the funds, for computer-assisted 
medical information for Alaska and Montana, two rural States that 
contain most of the remote and frontier health care locations. Senator 
Murkowski says that telemedicine has already proven to be cost 
effective and a practical answer to the Alaska dilemma of how to 
provide modern health care in a vast geographical area, an area 
completely unconnected by roads and with access only by airplane, 
snowmobile, or dogsled.
  Telemedicine is helpful. It is not the total solution, by any stretch 
of the imagination, but it is very helpful. There is no single bullet. 
There are problems with all forms of health care assistance in very 
remote rural areas.
  The State of Alaska, I might say, is studying different options right 
now. They have not reached a conclusion as to what the best option 
would be between King Cove and Cold Bay. One option is Coast Guard air 
evacuation helicopter. Helicopters work sometimes; they don't work 
sometimes; it depends upon the weather.
  Another option is improved port facilities and special marine 
ambulances. This doesn't always work, but it works very well sometimes. 
And another is telemedicine. We all know that advanced telemedicine is 
going to be quite helpful in more rural areas.
  I want to underline that this study by the State of Alaska on what 
the best transportation option would be between King Cove and Cold Bay 
is not complete. It is underway right now. The State of Alaska is 
trying to determine, itself, what the best way would be to provide the 
best access between those two communities. They are looking, obviously, 
at effectiveness. They are looking at cost. They are looking at the 
environmental impact.
  You don't need to pass this bill before us to complete the evaluation 
process. You only need to pass the bill if you have already decided to 
build the road. But we should wait to see what the study says before we 
go ahead and build this road.
  In addition, there is another study going on to address this same 
problem. In the transportation appropriations bill passed by this body, 
the senior Senator from Alaska included a provision for another study 
of transportation access. This is a study that would be done by the 
Army Corps of Engineers. The Senator from Alaska provided about 
$700,000 for a study by the Army Corps of Engineers to determine 
transportation access needs and solutions in Alaska.
  That means we have two studies going on. One is the State of Alaska 
study, and the other is the Army Corps of Engineers study. At the very 
least, I think it is premature at this point to authorize a road. 
Rather, we should wait and see what the studies come up with. 
Otherwise, I just think we are wasting taxpayers' money, particularly 
the Army Corps of Engineers money, if we are going to decide what the 
solution is in advance.
  It reminds me of ``It's Your Money'' on TV. We spend $700,000, and 
the State of Alaska spends State money, to study a solution. But, 
before the studies are done, the money is down the drain because 
Congress steps in and decides what the solution is going to be.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.
  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. BAUCUS. That has happened to me many times.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. You can't do that if you live in King Cove and Cold 
Bay.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might answer the Senator's question, I am not saying 
that, just because the roads in Montana are often impassable because of 
snow, the same must be true around King Cove. I am saying that is the 
opinion of a good number of residents. That is what they say, that very 
often snow conditions make the roads impassable.
  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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to point out what the State 
of Alaska study is really all about.
  I have here on this chart the basic purpose of the State of Alaska 
study--determining what the best solution would be in terms of access 
between King Cove and Cold Bay. Let me just show you what they are.
  The first purpose of this study is to reduce the infrastructure 
maintenance and operation burden. It doesn't say anything about medical 
needs or medical safety.
  The point here is that these are two separate communities, and some 
folks in both those communities think that maybe they should combine 
schools and have one school instead of two. After all, there are about 
700 or 800 people in one community; that is, King Cove. There are about 
100 folks, as I understand it, up around Cold Bay. Why not? It makes 
sense to maybe have one school, and maybe the same health care 
facility, and maybe share power generation or the public works 
facility. The Alaska report says that this will reduce the cost of 
living in these communities.
  The first purpose of the study is to reduce the cost of living in 
King Cove and Cold Bay. The second purpose is to improve safety and 
convenience of travel between King Cove and Cold Bay. That is No. 2.
  We talked a little bit about safety. You might note that point No. 2 
says convenience--not just medical safety, but also convenience.
  The third purpose, I might add, Mr. President, is really the most 
interesting. The third purpose is to strengthen regional economic 
development.
  King Cove--that is on the lower part of the map--is a major hub of 
the fishing industry. It has extensive fish processing facilities. But 
it doesn't have an airport capable of handling large cargo planes. Cold 
Bay does. That is the big difference between the two. Cold Bay has no 
deep-water ports. King Cove is just the opposite: deep water, no 
airport. Therefore, the construction of a road between King Cove and 
Cold Bay would provide a significant economic benefit to the fishing 
industry and to the local economy.
  Let me read from the State of Alaska initial study:

       A stronger, more reliable transportation link between the 
     two communities would facilitate the movement of fresh fish 
     between King Cove docks and the marketplace, allowing fresh 
     fish from the processing plants in King Cove to be on a plane 
     bound for anywhere in the world within hours.
       The cost of shipping would decrease as would delays, 
     inconvenience and uncertainty caused by transportation modes 
     that are expensive, inconvenient and dangerous. This would 
     open up new markets and increase the competitiveness of the 
     Alaska fishing industry.

  And later the study notes that commercial fishermen support building 
the road because the road ``will provide the most economic, reliable, 
flexible and convenient means of moving their product to an airport''--
that is up in Cold Bay--``capable of supporting 747 operations.'' That 
is, airplanes, 747s.
  I can understand why the people down in King Cove would think a road 
is a good idea, to promote economic development. Again, the study says 
that improved transportation has three purposes--one is improving the 
infrastructure, the second is convenience and safety, but the third is 
economic development. Safety is only a very, very small part of the 
study here. We were led to believe it is about the only reason, but the 
fact is, the real driving force here is not safety. The real driving 
force here is to get fish that are

[[Page S11251]]

processed down in King Cove up to the airport so they can improve 
market access around the world.
  Now, there is a huge processing plant down in King Cove. It is one of 
the largest in Alaska. That processing plant processes, I think it is 
about 38 to 40 million pounds of fish a year.
  The company is Peter Pan, which has the big processing plant down at 
King Cove. I am reading now from the study, the Alaska study:

       With improved access, major freight movements from King 
     Cove to Cold Bay would likely consist of fresh fish and 
     seafood from the Peter Pan plant. Discussion with Peter Pan's 
     staff suggests that up to 5 percent of their product may move 
     into the fresh market if good access is available to the Cold 
     Bay airport. Although Peter Pan's total production volume is 
     proprietary information, it is estimated their total product 
     volume is in the 30- to 40-million pound range. Employing the 
     5-percent estimate provided by Peter Pan suggests that 
     ultimately approximately 1.5 to 2 million pounds of fresh 
     fish could move to Cold Bay annually. Packaging and jell ice 
     would add an additional 15 percent, for a total gross weight 
     of about 2 million pounds.

  I don't know how much you can put in a truck. Some say about 10,000 
pounds. That means that if this road is built, there are going to be 
hundreds of trucks full of fish on this road to get out to the Cold Bay 
airport.
  This report also goes on to say that:

       Forthcoming individual fishing quotas for halibut and black 
     cod, additional market efforts by Peter Pan could increase 
     the amount by 25 to 50 percent within 3 to 4 years.

  So that is what is happening here --and I understand it; if I were in 
King Cove, I would want the same--a large fish processing plant wants 
to road-haul their product, about 2 million pounds of fish a year, to 
the airport. My calculation comes out to at least 200 trucks, maybe 
more, a year, and add to that all the other folks who are going to be 
traveling on this road.
  This is no small matter. This is not just emergency medical access to 
a hospital. That is not the issue at all. In fact, I have other data 
that show, again from the Alaska study, there have been no fatalities 
in air evacuation in the period of time studied; 95 percent got to the 
hospital from King Cove within 24 or 48 hours, 75 percent of the 
medevac transports from King Cove to Cold Bay had no delay.
  And I only use these dates, these periods, because that is the data 
in the Alaska study. I don't have any more current data or different 
data. Again, the data shows that with respect to medical evacuation to 
King Cove, January, mid-January, 1996 to near the end of June 1997, 
total medevacs were 20: No delay, 15; 3- to 4-hour delay, 4; 24-hour 
delay, 1.
  Not perfect but not too bad. And most of the air accidents that occur 
near King Cove have really little to do with medevac. There are other 
accidents that have occurred.
  And I might say, too, that Pen Air--an airline, probably a commuter 
airline, in Alaska--has about 1,800 flights a year between King Cove 
and Cold Bay--1,800 a year. So planes do fly in and out from the area; 
that is, King Cove to Cold Bay.
  The study also points out that there is no greater need for air 
emergency transportation here than in other places in Alaska--no 
greater need. That is in the Alaska study. Essentially, as I said, Pen 
Air now makes more than 1,800 one-way flights between these two 
communities each year, and they have had three accidents over 20 years. 
The State has concluded that the accident rate is still low and that--
this is the State's conclusion--``that the residents of King Cove are 
in no greater danger than other Alaskans who rely on air transport.''
  So again to review, No. 1, the State is doing the study. There are 
many alternatives under review, and air evacuation is relatively safe. 
But there are other driving forces here that are pushing for the road, 
which brings me to my final point--the environmental impact of building 
a road through the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness.
  As has been noted, Congress has often adjusted wilderness boundaries. 
We have done it to correct mistakes. That is usually when we do it. We 
have adjusted wilderness boundaries because we have passed a wilderness 
bill and we made a mistake. We go back and adjust a boundary to correct 
the mistake. We have done it to accommodate preexisting uses that have 
been overlooked. That has happened a couple of times. We have also 
adjusted wilderness boundaries to provide access to inholders as 
required by law. But as far as I know, Congress has never authorized 
the construction of a road through a wilderness area to connect two 
points outside the wilderness area--never.
  So the passage of this bill would set a very important precedent. You 
would say it is OK to construct a road through a wilderness area 
connecting two points. The argument we are hearing is that this bill 
will not lead to the construction of a road through a wilderness area, 
because we'd be taking an area out of the wilderness, transferring it 
over to the refuge, then building the road through where the wilderness 
was and saying, gee, we are not building a road through a wilderness.
  Well, that is absurd on its face, Mr. President. Of course we are 
building a road through wilderness. On the map, as presented by my good 
friends on the other side, there is wilderness. There is a road through 
the wilderness. So we are building a road through wilderness. It is 
pretty simple. It is not rocket science. This is about a road through a 
wilderness.

  It is also through a very, very important wildlife refuge. Again, 
here is King Cove down here, and Cold Bay is up here. The road would go 
through this area. The wilderness section is right here. The proposal 
is to make this no longer wilderness and then build a road through it. 
Of course it is a road through wilderness. They say, just take these 
lands out of the wilderness. That is what the bill says. In exchange 
you get some other area.
  The use of the land in exchange, the net 580 acres, is land that is 
already restricted under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. So 
there is no gain here. The net effect of all this is still a road 
through a wilderness refuge system. That is the net effect here, that 
is what we are doing.
  Let me just address, briefly, why this is so important. We are now 
talking about a wilderness and refuge system that is extremely 
important. In fact, it is critical. It is critical resting and critical 
feeding ground for migratory waterfowl. It is absolutely critical.
  This is Alaska, Canada, United States and Russia. These are the 
Arctic breeding grounds.
  Let me back up. This little red dot here is the area we are talking 
about, the Izembek Wilderness area, the refuge wilderness area now in 
question. It is the major stopping ground for many, many birds. Why? It 
is very simple.
  Birds come up from the south. Let me mention what some of them are. 
One is the Black Brant, 150,000 land here in the spring and fall; the 
Emperor Goose, 100,000 in the spring and fall. Let me say, all of the 
world's Emperor Geese land here; all of them. All the world's Emperor 
Geese stop here at the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness. All the Pacific 
Black Brant stop there; all of them. Then there are Canadian Geese; 
85,000 stop in the fall; Stellers Eider stop in the fall and winter. 
Shorebirds, 31 species, 300,000.
  ``Why do they stop there?'' you ask. What is so special about this 
location, this place? I will tell you what is so special. It is a 
wetlands. It provides food. These birds, amazingly, have flown, some of 
them, all the way to Australasia, a long way. And some of these birds 
go to Mexico. That is the Black Brant. The Canadian Geese go to the 
Pacific Northwest. Shorebirds fly as far away as Patagonia. Can you 
believe it? Birds that nest and stop off to feed and fatten up so they 
can fly, fly as far away as Patagonia and come back to Izembek Refuge. 
It is amazing.
  Basically, the birds come up, say, in the spring. They stop here to 
fatten up, to restore their energy after the long flight from the 
south. Then they go up further north. This is the breeding grounds up 
in the Arctic area where there is not as much food. It is good breeding 
grounds area, but there is not as much food. After the birds have bred, 
they fly south. They have to stop again here in the fall of the year 
when the summer is over to stock up again, get some food for that long 
flight to Patagonia, Australasia; these long, long flights. So this 
refuge is very, very important.
  Essentially, I would like to remind all of us really what is at stake 
here and what is happening; namely, No. 1,

[[Page S11252]]

this bill is not needed. Why? Because there is a study going on, a 
study to try to find the best alternatives, what is right.
  No. 2, the driving force here is really commercial. That is the 
driving force. There is a very large fish processing plant down at King 
Cove. They want to get their fish to Cold Bay. I understand that, but 
it is not emergency medical evacuation. That is not the reason.
  And, No. 3, this road is going to very seriously disrupt these birds' 
nesting grounds. Why? If there is a processing plant down here and, as 
I mentioned--you do the calculations. According to the study from 
Alaska, there may be a couple of hundred trucks, at least added on, 
traffic back and forth, and then you could have more 747s. The Alaska 
study says the purpose of this is to fill 747s. That is what the Alaska 
study says, the 747s in Cold Bay. I might be wrong, I say to the 
quizzical look of my friend from Alaska, but that is what the study 
says: 747s. They may be wrong, but that is what the Alaska study says.
  So it is really to connect these two towns commercially, for 
convenience and so forth. That might be a good thing to do. It might 
not. Let's wait until we get the study and see what the study says.
  Remember, this is very serious business here. It is potentially 
setting the precedent, building the road connecting two areas outside 
of a wilderness area; that has never been done before. In addition to 
that, disrupting a very sensitive population of birds with 747s and 
other airplanes of that size flying in and out much more frequently, 
because of all the trucks going back and forth and often in very 
impassable conditions, because of snow conditions, it is going to cause 
a very significant effect on the wildlife there.
  I will just sum up and say I thank my friend from Alaska for bringing 
this up as a freestanding bill. These riders are a bit of a problem 
because they are riders, but as a freestanding bill we can talk about 
it and debate it. I appreciate the Senators taking good care of their 
State. This is something that some people in Alaska want. I understand 
that. But this is a national refuge. We are talking about a wilderness 
area. We are talking about a refuge area which belongs to all of us in 
the United States.
  I know the sensitivity that Alaskan Senators have. ``Here comes Uncle 
Sam all the time, here comes Secretary Babbitt, here comes the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. We in Alaska are told what to do by these 
outsiders.'' I understand a good bit of that because in my State of 
Montana, 30 percent of our lands are public lands and most of it is 
Federal. I understand that. So we have to find the right balance here, 
the right balance between the wishes of the residents of the State of 
Alaska as well as the national interest.
  My conclusion is the best balance between the two is let's wait for 
the studies. They will probably come up with some better ideas than we 
have already come up with so far today. We do not have to wait that 
long. The medevacs are working. There are all kinds of ways to address 
this. Let's let discretion be the better part of valor here and not 
adopt an amendment at this time. Wait a while and then get the best 
result there. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to encourage Members to read this 
article, a story about the hardships endured by the people of King 
Cove, and I ask that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Road Warriors: Community Environmentalists Battle Over Road Through 
                                 Refuge

                           (By Maureen Clark)

       King Cove, Alaska (AP).--On this blustery spit of sand, 
     surrounded by treeless mountains that rise out of the Pacific 
     Ocean and disappear into the clouds, a medical emergency can 
     take on formidable complications.
       Mariene Newman still gets a knot in her stomach when she 
     talks about the three-day wait to get to a hospital after her 
     daughter, Arlene, then 5, broke her arm while doing 
     cartwheels six years ago.
       Fierce winds were funneling through the mountain pass where 
     the community's small air strip sits. Planes were grounded.
       Newman watched and waited for a break in the weather, 
     treating her daughter with painkillers and ice packs. Arlene 
     couldn't keep food down and grew weaker by the day.
       Finally, Mariene and her husband, A.J., a fisherman who 
     grew up in this isolated community at the tip of the Alaska 
     Peninsula, decided to risk the rough seas for the three-hour 
     boat trip to Cold Bay and its all-weather airport.
       By the time they reached Cold Bay, the little girl lay limp 
     in her father's arms as she was carried from the lurching 
     vessel, up a 30-foot ladder to the dock and taken to a plane 
     bound for Anchorage, 625 miles away.
       ``My heart was just twisting,'' Mariene Newman said.
       Arlene recovered and remembers little of her ordeal.
       Mariene can't forget. ``No one should have to go through 
     what she and I did.''
       In this place where 80-mph winds are common in winter and 
     fog can cut off the community for days at a time in summer, 
     many of King Cove's 770 residents have similar stories.
       They tell of stroke, heart attack and burn victims who had 
     to wait days to get to a hospital; of premature babies born 
     on fishing vessels and cradled in makeshift incubators.
       The community learned the hard way not to take chances with 
     the violent winds. Four people were killed when a medevac 
     flight carrying an injured fisherman crashed during a winter 
     storm in 1980.
       A one-lane, 27-mile gravel road to the airport at Cold Bay 
     would end their isolation and provide safe transportation in 
     times of emergency, King Cove residents say.
       The Cold Bay airport, built during World War II, is the 
     third largest in the state with its 10,000-foot runway. It 
     has even been designated as an alternate landing site for the 
     space shuttle.
       A rider in an Interior Department spending bill that 
     Congress takes up this month would allow a land exchange to 
     make way for construction of the road.
       But the road would pass through part of the Izembek 
     National Wildlife Refuge, a critical staging area for 
     hundreds of thousands of waterfowl and birds and home to 
     caribou and bears.
       Conservation groups oppose the proposal, saying it would 
     irreparably harm wildlife habitat and set a precedent for 
     building roads through other wild places.
       ``This is the most important wetlands area in Alaska,'' 
     said Deborah Williams, the Interior Secretary's special 
     assistant for Alaska.
       The issue is shaping up as the biggest environmental fight 
     in Congress this year.
       The White House has already issued a stern veto threat 
     and the proposal could stall the Interior Department's 
     entire $7 billion budget.
       Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who chairs the powerful Senate 
     Appropriations Committee, said he is ready for a fight.
       ``If anyone in this Senate votes against me, this is one I 
     will not forget,'' Stevens warned at a subcommittee hearing 
     in late June.
       Thousands of miles from the looming showdown in Washington, 
     caribou graze in the hilly tundra, dotted with lakes. In the 
     foothills of the mountains, bears feast on berries and 
     salmon, fattening up for the approaching winter.
       A quarter of a million Pacific brant, Steller's eiders and 
     emperor geese are arriving in the refuge in waves on their 
     fall journey south.
       More than 186 species of birds use the lagoons that lie 
     just offshore. Many depend on the abundant eelgrass and 
     berries for critical nourishment during their long 
     migrations.
       ``Nothing compares to this right here,'' refuge manager 
     Greg Siekaniec said as he waved his arm toward the eelgrass 
     beds of Izembek Lagoon and the Bering Sea beyond.
       About 3,000 people from around the world visit the refuge 
     each year to hunt caribou and waterfowl, watch birds, fish 
     its salmon streams and hike its rolling hills.
       The measure before Congress would exchange 85 acres of 
     refuge lands for 664 acres adjoining the refuge owned by 
     local Natives, resulting in a net gain of 579 acres to the 
     refuge. The proposal would not provide funding for the road, 
     which could cost anywhere from $10 million to $29 million.
       Critics say the exchange would remove land from the heart 
     of the refuge, which has been designated as a wilderness 
     area.
       ``It's a tough sell from our standpoint, to trade a 
     corridor for lands elsewhere that are less important 
     biologically,'' said Allen Smith, Alaska regional director 
     for the Wilderness Society.
       Opponents of the road say a modern telemedicine system, 
     linking the village clinic with physicians in Anchorage, 
     coupled with a marine ambulance and improvements to the dock 
     at Cold Bay, would provide a safe, cost-effective alternative 
     to a road.
       But telemedicine won't help stroke patients, heart attack 
     victims or those suffering from head injuries who need to get 
     to a hospital, said Leslie Kerr, one of two nurse 
     practitioners who staff the village clinic. And King Cove 
     residents say the stormy conditions that make air travel 
     impossible would make travel in a marine ambulance 
     treacherous.
       ``In any other place in America, you'd just call 911,'' 
     Kerr said. ``We're just trying to get closer to what other 
     people expect to receive.''
       Even by Alaska standards, King Cove is isolated. Many 
     residents have their groceries shipped in by barge twice a 
     year. There is one restaurant and no movie theater. People 
     like their way of life and don't expect the amenities that 
     might be found elsewhere, said city manager Gary Hennigh.

[[Page S11253]]

       ``We'll never be in the same realm as mainstream America 
     but it can still be as good as circumstances allow,'' Hennigh 
     said. ``There's this big runway just 27 miles way. If there's 
     an opportunity to make something better, we ought to find a 
     way to make it happen.''
       The rhetoric in the debate has grown hot, with a haze of 
     charges and counter charges on both sides.
       Supporters of the road accuse their opponents of valuing 
     wildlife over human life. The refuge is already criss-crossed 
     with trails left by 40,000 troops stationed at Cold Bay 
     during World War II, they say.
       Environmentalists counter that the real reason King Cove 
     residents want the road is for the economic development it 
     could bring.
       King Cove is a company town. Local fishermen sell their 
     catch to the Peter Pan Seafoods plant, the only cannery in 
     town. With a road to the Cold Bay airport, they could fly 
     their fish to other markets.
       But Mayor Henry Mack, a fisherman, shakes his head when 
     asked about economic development. With Alaska's wild salmon 
     losing market share to farmed salmon from Chile, Norway and 
     elsewhere, local fishermen would have a difficult time 
     competing on the world market for fresh salmon, he said.
       ``Our first priority is a safe means of travel. If that's 
     all this turns out to be, we'd be happy,'' Mack said.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am saddened to come to the floor and 
find the Senator from Montana quoting from the State of Alaska study. I 
am equally sad to hear what he gleaned from it. I wonder if the Senator 
from Montana knows that the State study shows the average flight delay 
from King Cove to Cold Bay is 8.8 hours. Does he know the State study 
also said the best option to solve this problem is, in fact, the road 
that I want to discuss? But I am really sad that my State has not 
backed the people from King Cove the way it should have. As a matter of 
fact, the Associated Press did have an article that appeared throughout 
the country. I want to encourage Members to read this article, the 
story about the hardships endured by the people of King Cove, that I 
asked be printed in the Record at the beginning of my remarks.
  I know the graphics cannot appear in the Record, but I hope the 
Senate will understand we are talking about King Cove, which is out at 
the end of the Alaska peninsula. The land on that peninsula is almost 
entirely withdrawn. There are some native lands on it, but it would not 
be possible to have a road go out of King Cove to Anchorage by land. We 
are talking about an area that is isolated by land, an area that is 
located just a few miles from Cold Bay, which is an alternate landing 
site for the space shuttle.
  If you want to talk about 747s landing there, the space shuttle 
itself can land there, just 30 miles from King Cove. If anybody is 
worried about the turbulence and planes landing at King Cove, as far as 
the migratory birds coming in the Izembek, I think they ought to check 
again.
  I argued against this land in its entirety becoming a part of the 
Izembek Refuge. Part of it is nesting and resting grounds for migratory 
birds. Part of it is a former airbase from World War II that I will 
describe. After it was made part of the wilderness area--it is strange, 
you make an airbase that has old Quonset huts and roads on it, and you 
say, by the stroke of a pen, ``This is a wilderness area now, this is a 
wilderness area; be careful, you cannot do anything more in this 
area.'' There are 42 miles of road advertised by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service as a good place to come hunt, but you cannot move the boundary 
60 feet--60 feet--so we can build a road outside of that wilderness 
area and allow these people to come to Cold Bay to be transported 
another 600 miles from there to get to a hospital.
  Mr. President, I welcome to Washington several of the civic leaders 
from King Cove. I am sure they are saddened to hear Members of the U.S. 
Senate telling them that their lives and their children's lives are 
less important than 60 feet along 7 miles of the southern boundary of 
this area that has been set aside and called a wilderness area.
  When we first started wilderness, it was intended to include only 
roadless areas. It had to be roadless. When they made this into a 
wilderness area, I argued, ``How can you do this? How can you make that 
area that is part of the airbase into wilderness?'' They said, ``We 
need to round it out.'' They have rounded it out all right. They have 
rounded it out in a way that denies King Cove access to Cold Bay.
  My people up in the gallery are a long way from home, Mr. President, 
and I do welcome them. I am sure that they are here to make certain 
that we do our job. I do this one very willingly--very willingly--
because I represent a State that has two-thirds of its total land 
withdrawn. I have imposed the State of Alaska on a map of what we call 
the contiguous 48 States. It is going from Florida in the East to 
southwest of Arizona, almost to the Baja coastline, and from Duluth 
down to the Texas Panhandle. It is an area that is one-fifth the total 
landmass of the United States.
  Two-thirds of all of our State is withdrawn Federal land. It is there 
for us to look at, but we can't use it without permission from some 
bureaucrat who is compelled by a law passed by the extreme 
environmentalists who come to this floor and say we need to withdraw 
more, we need to protect this more, we need to come up with some way to 
prevent Alaskans from living.
  More than a third of all Federal land is in Alaska--more than a third 
of all the land owned by the Federal Government is in Alaska! The land 
owned by the Federal Government in my State is larger than Texas. The 
Federally-owned land in Alaska would be the largest State in the Union 
outside of Alaska. It is twice the size of California; 358 Rhode 
Islands would fit in the Federally-owned land in Alaska. Beyond that, 
half of the wilderness in all 50 States is in our State. A full 16 
percent of this vast State of ours is called wilderness. The whole 
State is de facto wilderness, but because of an act of Congress, this 
area is deemed to be a kind of super-duper wilderness, impregnable by 
people who are seeking medical care.
  We have 57 million acres of wilderness in Alaska, and we are talking 
about 60 feet along 6 miles of the smallest wilderness area in Alaska.
  We see a lot of people come into our State from States that don't 
have any wilderness at all. They come and say, ``Oh, isn't it 
wonderful, all this wilderness.'' And they go back and have another 
group of D-8 cats clear and develop more of their land, and then they 
put the money they make from that into some organization to be sure 
they protect Alaska from any development. They are so extreme that they 
say this 303,000-acre Izembek Refuge, the smallest one of the 16 
refuges in Alaska, is so sacrosanct that it cannot move its border 60 
feet.
  Mr. President, as I said, this whole area of the Aleutian Islands and 
Alaska Peninsula, almost all of it, is refuge land. This wilderness 
area is just a very small part of the 16 refuges in Alaska. We are 
dealing with just superlatives. The Izembek Wilderness alone is larger 
than the entire wilderness areas in most States. That is how small 
wilderness is in the South 48, but when it comes up our way, we get 
millions of acres at a time.
  Let me tell you a little bit about King Cove. Everyone knows the 
Alaska Natives there have survived the climatic conditions of Alaska 
for thousands and thousands of years on the Alaska peninsula. They were 
a nomadic people originally. They followed the caribou and fish and 
lived entirely off the land. Early in this century, they settled into 
permanent communities, including King Cove--a fishing community. Some 
communities built local canneries.
  The Japanese invaded the United States in World War II in only one 
area, as we all know, in the Aleutian Chain. When they invaded the 
Aleutian Islands, the U.S. Army built a giant base, Thornbrough Air 
Base, which was across the water from King Cove. Battle accounts will 
verify the inclement weather and how it played havoc on military 
operations in that area.
  After the war, the airbase was converted to a regional airport. It is 
now Cold Bay, a small town of mostly Federal employees.
  This is a picture of Cold Bay. As I said, the airbase is now an 
alternate landing site for the space shuttle. It has an enormous number 
of roads, apparent on the photograph I am showing the Senate, for a 
small community of Federal employees. This is the third largest runway 
in my State. It remains open throughout the year, rarely closing 
despite having the worst flying weather in the United States. Cold Bay 
itself is documented with the worst flying weather in the United 
States.
  As the cannery and the fishing fleet grew, the Native people became 
more

[[Page S11254]]

acclimated to normal American life, and they sought better medical 
services. We created, soon after I came to the Senate, community health 
aides for Native villages. This village has a small clinic staffed by a 
couple of community health aides. Any serious injury or illness 
requires medical evacuation to Anchorage or, in some instances, as far 
as Seattle.
  Like most Alaskan communities, the connection between the village and 
the regional airport is by air. Obviously, there are no roads through 
the peninsula. Nor is there now a road from King Cove to Cold Bay. The 
circumstances there, even though King Cove lies only 30 miles from Cold 
Bay, is that the airport at Cold Bay is far, far, far away. Thirty 
miles is a long way when you have to go from by water. That is one of 
the worst stretches of water known to man--the North Pacific Ocean--
between Cold Bay and the King Cove.

  Right there--King Cove is here and Cold Bay is across this body of 
water also known as Cold Bay. The purpose of this road is to allow the 
people who live in King Cove access to Cold Bay when the weather is so 
bad that it is not possible to travel by air or by sea. When it is 
calm, it is like any place else. They can take a boat across or fly the 
short distance. But the weather is rarely calm in King Cove.
  The Native people decided that they needed a road for emergencies, 
when the weather precludes air and sea transportation. That is what 
this is, an emergency road. I cannot believe that anyone would talk 
about trucks and truckloads of stuff going to Cold Bay on this road. 
Only a small unpaved dirt road is planned. And the community asked the 
Federal Government for permission to build that 6 miles. They own the 
balance of the land here except for the 6 miles. The Government said 
no.
  Then they offered a land exchange, acre for acre, for the 60 foot 
right-of-way; and the Federal Government said no. They then said, 
``Well, we'll give you 664 acres in exchange for 85 acres if you move 
the boundary.'' They said, ``If we can get through here, we will give 
you all of this here and here'' to add to the Izembek Refuge. It is 
almost an 8-to-1 acre trade.
  They specified they would use this road only for emergency use; and 
they further offered to help the Fish and Wildlife Service limit 
overall impacts of access on the whole refuge. And the Federal 
Government still said no.
  Let me tell you why my friends are in the gallery, Mr. President. 
Eleven people have died flying into or out of the community since 1980. 
Many more sick or injured have died waiting for the weather to clear 
because they did not even try to make the trip.
  Let me tell you about the people who died because they could not even 
start the trip: Ernest Mack and Walter Samuelson suffered heart attacks 
in King Cove, and waited days for weather to clear so they could fly to 
Anchorage. Both Ernest and Walter died because they could not get 
emergency medical care in a timely fashion.
  Christine Dushkin suffered a heart attack, and then died after 
crossing the bay in very bad weather in a fishing boat. She collapsed 
as she climbed the long ladder up to the top of the dock at Cold Bay. 
She suffered a heart attack in King Cove and died before she got to the 
Cold Bay airport.
  Cathy Hoff, Darien Gorsinger and John Dattoli lost their lives when 
their plane was blown into the side of a mountain by a gust of wind. 
They were people from King Cove who were trying to save the life of Tom 
Phillips, a Seattle fisherman, who had lost his leg in a boating 
accident in King Cove.
  I have heard colleagues talk on the floor about the morality of an 
HMO denying a child desperately needed health care. At the time I 
thought about King Cove. Is it moral for environmentalists to come to 
the floor and do the same thing? Is it moral for environmentalists to 
oppose giving this isolated village a chance to get the kind of medical 
attention that is available to the rest of the United States?
  A simple broken arm became a life-threatening situation after a 5-
year-old girl went into shock while waiting for weather to clear. The 
shock was from the broken arm. She just had to wait and wait and wait 
for the airplane to be able to get in, and she finally went over on a 
fishing boat once the sea calmed down sufficiently.
  One King Cove girl was born 2 months premature on a crab boat that 
was taking her mother across Cold Bay in very inclement weather. It was 
a very long trip, even though it is only 30 miles, because of the wind 
and sea conditions. This little girl was kept alive in a foil-lined 
shoebox stuffed in a toaster oven while the winter storm tossed that 
boat around before they finally got to the dock. She lived. She was 
fortunate.
  The road to Cold Bay would have allowed these children to reach an 
Anchorage hospital in hours instead of days, Mr. President--hours 
instead of days. As I said, my State study shows, in one of the few 
things they did report to us favorably for our people in King Cove, is 
the average flight delay is 8.8 hours. That is average.
  Once the people from King Cove get to Cold Bay, they have to fly 600 
miles. You know what that is. That is a flight from Helena to Colorado 
Springs; from Little Rock to Milwaukee; from Providence to Columbus. 
That is just to get to the hospital. Just to land and then be taken by 
ambulance to the hospital. After flying more than 600 miles from Cold 
Bay.
  I cannot believe that a heart attack victim in Helena would not be 
knocking on the door of the Senator from Montana if that person had to 
fly to Colorado to get treatment and was made to take a three hour boat 
ride in a raging sea just to make his flight. I cannot believe that a 
person suffering a spinal injury in Rhode Island would not complain 
about having to fly to Ohio for surgery. They would complain in the 
first instance just in terms of the distance between Cold Bay and 
Anchorage. The people in King Cove can accept the 600 mile flight, but 
they don't understand why the rest of their trip can't be made easier.
  We are talking about the distance between King Cove and Cold Bay. The 
administration and their advisers in the environmental community insist 
that a 600-mile medical evacuation necessity is not enough, that we 
should throw in a 3-hour boat ride in a Pacific storm--maybe more than 
that, because some of them do take longer when the wind and sea run 
against the boat, tossing it like a cork in the ocean.
  The Senator from Montana suggests we could use a helicopter. I wonder 
if he knows what the limits on flying a helicopter are in gale-force 
winds. We are talking about the normal conditions most of the year 
going across to Cold Bay--when the weather turns bad, as it often does, 
they get hurricane-force winds.
  I really think that people who suggest that ought to come out and 
find a volunteer to fly them in a helicopter across Cold Bay. I would 
not get in a helicopter with an 85-mile-an-hour wind blowing. I was in 
Cold Bay once when we had to tie the nose of our four-engine airplane 
to a D-8 Caterpillar in order to keep that plane from being blown away 
in an 80-mile-an-hour wind.
  This is a very serious thing to us. And as I have told the committee 
when we started this issue, this is the kind of issue that a Senator 
never forgets. I have heard other people say that here on the floor, 
and I have said it only once before in my life, but we cannot forget 
this one. This one means so much to so few people that unless we 
weren't a State and neither Senator Murkowski nor myself was here, they 
would have no hope at all. This is why we fought for statehood, to have 
the opportunity to come and explain to the Senate and the rest of the 
United States what it means to live in Alaska.
  In 1983, we moved wilderness in Montana--in Montana--so the people 
there could drive to a fishing hole. We moved that wilderness farther 
than we want to move this one.
  Last Congress, we moved wilderness in Alaska so Natives living in a 
national park could use snow machines in winter. We were grateful for 
that.
  Earlier this summer, 88 Senators voted to allow motorized 
transportation in the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota. We 
waived the Wilderness Act in Minnesota this year.
  Since when have we placed recreation above the lives of children and 
people who need medical care?
  When is the Senate going to start listening to those who come from an 
area that is closer to Tokyo than it is to Washington, DC? You don't 
know our land. You won't listen to us about our land and you raise our 
tempers because you won't listen.

[[Page S11255]]

  The only roads in this wilderness were there when the wilderness was 
created, and it shouldn't have become wilderness. I told them at the 
time, as I said previously, wilderness by definition is a roadless 
area. Now, the 42 miles of road in Izembek today are used by my friends 
who have the money to go out there and hunt every year. Yet, we are 
told we should tell these people to use boats when no rational person, 
except in a life-and-death emergency, would leave the dock in such high 
seas. We are told to risk more air crashes, knowing that pilots who 
volunteered, knowing the risk, have lost their lives.
  My friend will talk about telemedicine. No one believes in 
telemedicine more than I do. But telemedicine cannot deliver premature 
babies. Telemedicine cannot perform open-heart surgery yet. I hope the 
day will come when it can. We can't use marine ambulances. There is no 
vessel that I know of that can cross Cold Bay in a storm safely, let 
alone carrying an injured person. Helicopters will not take off and 
land in an 85-mile-an-hour wind.
  It is time we stop talking about alternatives. By the way, I heard 
the Senator from Montana talk about the alternative that I suggested. I 
suggested building the road south of the Kinzarof lagoon. This land is 
all owned by the Native people. They could cross all the way on their 
own land, but it would close off entrance to the lagoon. When we asked 
the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife people to look into 
it, I got the report that such a decision would, in fact, create a 
problem for the few migratory birds who use this lagoon--not the land, 
but the lagoon. We have abandoned that option because it would likely 
have a greater environmental impact than the road we are suggesting.
  We don't believe our road will have any environmental impact with the 
conditions we have agreed to as far as its use.
  Now, I think anyone that wants to put a helicopter there and tell the 
Coast Guard they should fly in such inclement weather, should talk to 
the Coast Guard. I have, and they declined the honor.
  We are here as representatives of a State that have seen their lands 
withdrawn, withdrawn, withdrawn. The land I used to take my sons to 
every year to go hunting was withdrawn and is now a wilderness area. 
Access to most of my State is cut off on any north-south or east-west 
axis on the ground by withdrawals and wilderness areas.
  There is now the spectacle of a former Member of the Senate, now Vice 
President, accusing me of burying this special interest rider deep in a 
spending bill so that it couldn't be found. I wish he were here so I 
might debate him on that. It is absolutely untrue. We opened this up in 
the committee. We had a vote in the committee. There was nothing hidden 
at all. It was public knowledge from the very beginning. Now we have 
people saying we are beginning to kill the Wilderness Act by moving the 
boundary of this area enough so we can build a 6-mile road, 60 feet 
wide, when the area itself already has 42 miles of road in it--the part 
of the refuge that will be affected by this road.
  I do get excited at times here on the floor when I find there are so 
many half-truths and untruths told about what is going on in my State. 
I think we need to know and someone should come here and be bold enough 
to tell us why this gravel road, 60 feet wide, deserves to be 
classified as wilderness, and remain so, despite the loss of life of 
people in this area. Why is this little strip of road more important 
than the lives of Alaskans who have not yet died, coming out of that 
community, seeking medical attention?
  We have a growing tension in our State--I speak of it often--
concerning the way we are treated as residents of a State, compared to 
how we were treated when we were residents of a territory. We did not 
have extreme environmental organizations controlling the administration 
when we were a territory. We do now. The strongest extreme group in the 
United States is the extreme environmental organization. It is a direct 
result of positions taken by that group that the administration has 
opposed this road and opposed helping these people.
  We believe we know how to protect our State and its resources better 
than anyone from Washington who flies in, spends 2 hours on the ground 
then flies home to tell us what to do--particularly our Native people. 
They have lived with this land for hundreds of thousands of years. They 
honor it.
  Did you know, Mr. President, that we have developed less than \1/2\ 
of 1 percent of 365 million acres? Roughly 18 to 19 million acres are 
occupied by Alaskans, Native, nonnative, military, nonmilitary, cities, 
towns--\1/2\ of 1 percent. Much of our lands are wetlands, as a matter 
of fact.
  Here we are in a situation where during World War II there was more 
activity in this area than ever there will be in the history of the 
world--an enormous base, planes flying in and out, troops quartered 30 
miles from the center of that base. They had more people there then 
than we will ever have on this road. In spite of the war, those birds 
survived. Isn't that strange that during the war, we flew planes, we 
maneuvered troops, we had real and mock assaults on the beaches, and 
the birds survived. I ask the Senate, can't we believe that the birds 
will not be harmed by people who live with them, but are merely seeking 
to cross the land in emergencies only?
  I urge all of my friends to vote for this proposition. By the way, 
the largest group of volunteers to our military services in the country 
per capita are the Alaskan Native people. They believe in this country. 
They believe in this government. They fight for the government. And 
they wonder, then, why does the government abandon them because of 
pressure groups like this? There is no excuse, no excuse, for anyone 
opposing this proposition, in my opinion.
  I urge the Senator to approve Senator Murkowski's bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of the 
senior Senator from Alaska on the bill. His State and the people in 
King Cove and Cold Bay mean a lot to him, and they mean a lot to us. 
The junior Senator from Alaska mentioned, and perhaps even some of the 
residents of King Cove wonder, if we are concerned. I say to these King 
Cove residents, who are either in the gallery watching or listening 
elsewhere, all of us are as concerned about your safety--your medical 
safety and medical health--as the two Alaska Senators are. Obviously, 
we are; we are all Americans.
  It is my feeling that maybe the best way to achieve better medical 
evacuation and better safety for the residents of King Cove is to 
complete the study--the two studies, actually. One is by your State, 
the State of Alaska, which is vigorously trying to figure out the best 
way to address better access between King Cove and Cold Bay. They are 
looking at various options--air options, marine options, road options. 
They are looking at telemedicine. They are looking at all the various 
logical ways to try to solve the problem.
  We all know there is no silver bullet, no one alternative that is 
going to be the total solution to make sure that if anybody is ill or 
in an emergency situation in King Cove that he or she can immediately 
get the best possible care at a hospital in Anchorage, or even as far 
away as Seattle. There is none. So we have to find the right thing.
  The other study that will be conducted is a $700,000 study of Alaska 
access issues by the Army Corps of Engineers. The study is at least now 
in the transportation appropriations bill.
  So we have a lot of alternatives here. I think really it behooves all 
of us, including the residents of King Cove, to find the best option. 
We don't know yet what the best one is because it is a very difficult 
problem. It is difficult because of the residents' inaccessibility to 
Cold Bay and other parts of Alaska. The Senator from Alaska mentioned 
that I suggested helicopters. I did suggest that as one option, but not 
all the time. Many times, helicopters make no sense; for instance, when

[[Page S11256]]

winds are blowing 85 miles an hour. I would not get in one then either. 
That is not a silver bullet. It is probably a combination of a lot of 
different things.
  No. 1, let's get the best solution and not rush to judgment and waste 
taxpayers' money by throwing two studies down the drain.
  Another point I want to make is that the effect of this bill would 
say we are going to build this road. Some say it is a dirt road, some 
say a gravel road. Well, it is a dirt road, a gravel road. But they are 
trying to convey the impression that it is pretty small, no big deal. 
Actually, it is a pretty big deal. According to the Alaska Assessment 
Study of Needs the road is intended to be used year-round, with an 
average of fewer than 400 vehicles per day, including tractor-trailers 
carrying freight.
  The Senator from Alaska questioned my assertion that freight could be 
hauled on this road. Well, I don't know. All I am saying is there is 
the contention, according to the State of Alaska study, that tractor-
trailers would be hauled. The reason that is mentioned, frankly, is 
because of the fish processing plant--a very large one--in King Cove. 
It is one of the largest in the State of Alaska, where 30 million to 40 
million pounds of fish are processed. Obviously, they would like to 
have this road to send the tractor-trailers on. This road would be 
designed for two-way traffic; it is not just a cow path. Again, at 
least the fish processing company would like to have this road.
  Some have suggested this is not the only time we have adjusted a 
wilderness boundary. Several references have been made to the State of 
Montana, where there was a road--well, there wasn't much of a road, I 
say to my good friend who is now on the floor. It was for 4X4s to go 
down to the lake to go fishing. And then Congress enacted a wilderness 
bill, and it included the road in the wilderness area. It was a 
mistake.
  Why did that mistake occur? I say to my good friend, probably because 
it wasn't much of a road. But it was a mistake. There was a preexisting 
kind of a road. Wilderness was created in the area, so the net result 
was that the road was in the wilderness area, that is true. But after 
we in the Congress recognized our mistake, we changed the designation 
so that the road could still be there. That is far different from this 
case we are talking about on the floor today.
  We are talking about the creation and building of a new road through 
wilderness--building a road through wilderness. That is a totally 
different situation. Now, I call it sleight of hand to say, oh, no, 
this is not a new road to the wilderness because we are taking this 
area out of wilderness and building this road through it. Obviously, if 
you look at the maps, there it is. The map says ``wilderness.'' You can 
see where the road would be, and it would be through a wilderness.
  I don't want to get too bogged down in all this, Mr. President. The 
fact of the matter is that our minds are pretty well made up. I think 
it is important to make it clear for the record what is happening here, 
what some of the other reasons are for what we are doing here.
  Here is a photo. For example, this is a road--if you can see it. It 
is the kind of road that would be constructed in this area. It is a 
typical, good-condition road in Cold Bay, AK. As you can see, two 
vehicles can get by each other. As you can see, trucks could travel 
this road; tractor-trailer trucks could certainly travel this road.
  On the other hand, this is the kind of road, if you will, that now 
exists in the wilderness. It has been mentioned that there are already 
roads in the wilderness. There really isn't much of a road. It is the 
kind in this photo here that exists in the wilderness. As you can tell, 
it is not much of a road. You could not travel on that year-round. Very 
few cars could travel on it.
  We are talking about the construction of a pretty good road, up to 
certain specifications, which is not a highway, it is not paved, but as 
you can tell by the map here, it is a pretty good, decent road. In my 
home State of Montana, that is a highway. It is not an interstate, but 
that is a pretty good road.
  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. BAUCUS. That is a photograph of the so-called road here on the 
map. Cold Bay is down here, and there is a road that goes up here. It 
is sort of a road trail that would connect with the proposed 
construction road. This is a map of this road provided by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. That is all I can tell the Senator.
  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. BAUCUS. There may be a difference in the road. I don't know. One 
more point, in case folks haven't been listening to the entire debate: 
My view is there is a medical need. That is clear.
  According to the State of Alaska, it is no greater, or no worse, than 
the needs of other similar communities in Alaska. There are several 
studies. Two are going on to try to address the best solution. The 
studies are looking at not only determining the best of three routes--
air, water, road--but also trying to figure out how to increase the 
commercial viability of these communities. The real purpose here is to 
economic development. That is the driving force behind this road.
  To sum up, let's wait until the studies are completed. When they are 
completed, my guess is that we will find a better way to help the 
people in King Cove, and in a way that does not disrupt a very 
sensitive national wildlife refuge wilderness area where hundreds of 
thousands of birds stop over in the spring and in the fall to feed and 
store up food for the breeding grounds in the northern part of Alaska, 
or to fly south.
  The present occupant of the Chair wasn't here when I mentioned this 
earlier. These birds fly great distances. Some fly as far as Patagonia, 
if you can believe it, to the Izembek Refuge; to Patagonia and back 
again and up north to the Arctic regions in the summer to feed.
  I urge Senators, the better option is to wait for the study. This is 
a very serious matter--building a new road in a wilderness area. It 
might not be the best option for the area. But we should wait for the 
studies.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  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. FRIST. Indeed, I would be happy to discuss some of these issues.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, one of the reasons the people from King 
Cove are, of course, pushing for access is that when a serious injury 
occurs, they understand that treatment has to be obtained in a 
relatively short period of time, in some cases immediately. Many of the 
health care providers in the area refer to the first hour after an 
injury as the crucial ``golden hour,'' so to speak, meaning that this 
is the most critical time after an injury.
  I wonder if the Senator could shed some light on what that time is. 
What does that ``golden hour'' really mean?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the ``golden hour'' is a basic fundamental 
principle of emergency care, of emergency responsiveness in trauma 
care. The Senator from Alaska is entirely correct. When a serious 
trauma occurs, it is that first hour, that ``golden hour'' that is 
absolutely critical.
  The principle is very simple; that is, the quicker one can respond 
and get to appropriate treatment, the better the outcome. The ``golden 
hour''--put that in quotation marks. But it is a fundamental principle 
that every emergency room and every trauma surgeon understands. It 
refers to the principle that the severely injured patients are

[[Page S11257]]

more likely to survive with rapid, responsive, appropriate 
resuscitation, and treatment.
  Patients with otherwise potentially survivable injuries can die 
unless there is intervention--frequently, surgical intervention--with 
appropriate resources accessed by that surgeon, or by that trauma 
personnel that is available. Delaying or failing to perform that needed 
emergency action or emergency surgery is the most common cause of those 
otherwise preventable deaths.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand there is a distinction, Mr. President, 
between medevac trauma death and early trauma death. I wonder if the 
Senator could elaborate.
  Mr. FRIST. There is. I think it is important. Again, the terms 
``medevac'' and ``early'' are very appropriate. It is appropriate for 
people of the lay public to understand what those differences are.
  In the case where you have a medevac trauma death, whereby the 
patient dies instantly, or within a very few minutes of whatever injury 
was incurred, there is little that can be done unless medevac treatment 
for that trauma takes place. So-called ``early'' death occurs within 2 
to 3 hours of injury. In either case, the ability to get care 
immediately is the most single important factor in determining 
survivability and outcome.
  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. FRIST. Mr. President, this is very well accepted in the emergency 
care peer review. The literature carefully documents it, and it is just 
as we discussed. With each passing hour the chances of survival 
diminish. If you draw a curve, the chance of survival in that first 
hour is very high, the second hour a little bit less, but still high, 
and every hour it diminishes over time. And that is the underlying 
principle of the so-called ``golden hour.''
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughts of the 
Senator from Tennessee on this.
  Another subject that we discussed at some length in this debate is 
concerning safe access to the residents of King Cove. The argument is 
that telemedicine is the solution to the dilemma of the people of King 
Cove and the access. I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he would agree 
with the following quote from one of the largest health providers in 
our State, and that is:

       The Aleutian Chain is without a doubt one of the most 
     difficult places on Earth to provide quality health care for 
     several reasons. Weather is a primary factor. Transportation 
     in an emergency can be terrifying. It can also be deadly, and 
     it can also be delayed. Many lives have been lost in the 
     attempt of both patient and provider in working on evacuation 
     teams. The Aleutians represent a unique opportunity to 
     develop telemedicine. However, it will never eliminate the 
     need for emergency transport to an acute care facility. That 
     is, of course, what the access road is all about between King 
     Cove and Cold Bay. The system will not carry a human body 
     that needs advanced medical care. It will not remove the need 
     for treacherous evacuations that so often take place from 
     King Cove.

  Talking specifically now about the technology of the advancement in 
this area of telemedicine, I wonder if the Senator could comment on the 
telemedicine technology benefits limitations. What kind of people do 
you have to have at the rural end to communicate this advanced 
technology that we are seeing in medical care today?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, telemedicine is, indeed, one of the most 
exciting new technologies to come along in medicine and in the 
application of carrying out what we know in terms of new knowledge, 
current knowledge, and the application. But it is very important for 
people to understand that its real limitation is that it is used 
principally for diagnostic purposes today. Over time that will change a 
bit. And it is advancing every day. But the quotation you just read is 
exactly correct. Telemedicine will never eliminate the need for 
emergency transportation, emergency transport, to an acute care 
facility.
  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. FRIST. Mr. President, I was not aware actually of that and the 
particular situation there in King Cove with regard to the satellite 
technology, but it really aims at a very important point, and that is, 
the premise of any telemedicine must start with reliable communications 
and it must end with reliable access to further care, for that care to 
be carried out--a very important point.
  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

[[Page S11258]]

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. BAUCUS. May I answer the question?
  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. BAUCUS. Can I answer the Senator's question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not ready to yield yet.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator asked me a question. I wonder if I could 
respond to it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not going to----
  Mr. BAUCUS. That was a rhetorical question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yield at this time, but I will certainly take a 
question at the end.
  Mr. BAUCUS. No, no; the Senator asked----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Alaska has the 
floor.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 55 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Arkansas has just under 126 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is a very difficult, a very 
difficult undertaking for me for a number of reasons. No. 1, my 
profound and unrestrained respect for the two Senators from Alaska who 
obviously feel very strongly about the issue. It gives me no pleasure 
to be on the other side.
  I sit as ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
where Senator Murkowski is chairman. I have been on Appropriations for 
22 years where Senator Stevens is chairman. They are no different from 
any other Senators of the U.S. Senate who, when they have a problem, 
have no hesitancy about doing everything they can to solve it for their 
people. That is what we are all here for, to serve our people. So it is 
with considerable regret that I find myself feeling compelled, however, 
to oppose the amendment and the bill.
  Let me say, also, that lack of health care is not just peculiar to 
Alaska. I grew up in a community of 851 souls where we sometimes had 
one doctor but most of the time we had none. My mother and father moved 
from a mountaintop farm into this little community of 851 people 
because my brother, who died before I was born--and who obviously, 
being firstborn, was the apple of my mother's eye--but we moved because 
he died for lack of any medical care. That was a long time ago. But my 
mother told me many times that she told my father, ``We are moving off 
this mountaintop. I am not going to live here and watch my babies die, 
one at a time, for lack of medical care.''
  I grew up with that story, so I grew up always trying to improve 
medical care in my little hometown. Finally, after I went back there to 
practice law, we were able to obtain one doctor. We built him a clinic. 
We fed him, we did everything in the world he asked us to do, and then 
he was killed in a car wreck, and there we were, left without a doctor 
again. It was only 30 minutes from a hospital, but if you are having a 
heart attack, that is too long. If you are having a massive heart 
attack, 30 minutes is too long.
  So, as I say, I grew up knowing what it was like not to have any 
medical care. We seldom had a doctor in our hometown. I can remember--
and I have said this on the floor before--that growing up during the 
Depression was a tough enough time. You know, that is one of the 
reasons I have always been an unabashed social liberal, and the reason 
I must say I resent so many people who use the term ``liberal'' as a 
denigrating term.
  I often want to say, what is it about liberalism that you hate? Which 
one of these programs that are considered liberal--for example, 
Medicare--would you repeal today? Or REA? Student loans? Or Pell 
grants? Or the ability to know that you are drinking pure and clean 
water? Or the ability to know that you are eating food that has been 
prepared under the most sanitary conditions? The list goes on and on 
and on and on of those things that were all considered liberal at the 
time.
  But you couldn't get anybody to go back to the poll tax system in the 
South. And I remember people in my State thought that was the end of 
the world as we knew it, when people were

[[Page S11259]]

allowed to vote free, didn't have to pay a dollar for a poll tax.
  Five black women came into my office 2 years ago, each one having 
been a victim of cancer of the breast. And I sat literally weeping with 
those five women, some of whom were going to make it and some of whom 
were not--but who said that they did not go to the doctor when they 
first felt the lump because they knew the doctor would either turn them 
down or tell them that they had no medical insurance. What if they did 
have cancer, they knew they were not going to be cared for. That was in 
1996. This is not when I was a child during the Depression. This was 2 
years ago. They were there to lobby me on behalf of a program they 
didn't need to lobby me on. I was already for it.
  But here these people were, 50 to 100 miles from Memphis and the 
finest hospitals in America--and I will not give you the name of the 
town they came from or where they had been denied health care. All I am 
saying is a lot of people are denied health care because of race. 
Others are denied health care because they don't have any insurance--45 
million of them. They are not necessarily denied health care simply 
because they don't have insurance, but oftentimes that is the case.
  Just as an aside, not particularly applicable to this debate, I 
remember every summer when people died of typhoid fever in my hometown 
because the outhouse was just about 20 steps away from the water well 
and we did not make the connection. But, you know, another one of those 
old liberal programs was free vaccinations. When I was in school we got 
smallpox, typhoid and I forget the other shot. We always got those at 
the school--free. The county health nurse administered the shots. That 
is what some people called the good old days. They weren't good old 
days to me.
  Will Rogers once said, ``The good old days ain't what they used to 
be, and they never was.''
  Well, one of the most difficult things I faced as Governor of my 
State was a highly charged issue of whether or not Lee County, AR, the 
third poorest county in America, would get an OEO grant. Some of you 
are old enough to remember the Office of Economic Opportunity, another 
one of those liberal programs that I remember President Nixon put a man 
in charge, specifically, to dismantle it. But there was a $1 million 
grant for a clinic in Lee County, AR, as I said, one of the poorest 
counties in America. It was designed to provide health care for African 
Americans who had no place to go, and it became a black/white issue. 
They got the money if I, as Governor, signed off on it, and they didn't 
get the money if I didn't sign off on it.
  The first thing you know, a little violence broke out and I had to 
send about 15 to 20 State Troopers into that town for about 4 or 5 days 
to restore and maintain the peace.
  Those were very trying times. That sounds anachronistic today, but 
that has been a short 27 years ago.
  I did something that I knew was right that was very troublesome. I 
signed the grant and, if you pardon the expression, all hell broke 
loose in that town. It was the county seat.
  To shorten the story, today it is the primary health care center for 
everybody in that county.
  An organization in New York about 2 weeks ago gave that clinic a 
$50,000 mobile van in order to keep people from coming in all the time. 
The clinic will take the van around a three-county area. They will let 
people know when it is coming. They will immunize children and so on. 
Betty, who is not only ``secretary of peace,'' but also has been very 
active, she and Mrs. Carter, in immunizing all the children in this 
country, went down for the presentation of this van to that same clinic 
that got the $1 million grant 27 years ago. Now, as I say, it is the 
primary health care center for the entire county, black and white.
  I say those things to preface my remarks about this issue. There 
isn't any question, nor does anybody I know of who opposes the 
amendment and the bill--there isn't any question about the problem. 
Certainly the two Senators from Alaska understand these things in 
Alaska, so far as they are concerned, much better than I do. I 
understand, being a southerner from a relatively poor State, that a lot 
of people are deprived of health care for totally different reasons, 
and that is the reason I prefaced my remarks.
  Here we are talking about a 30-mile road which, incidentally, as I 
understand it, will cost in the vicinity of $25 million to $30 million, 
and 8 of the 11 miles that go through the national wildlife refuge is 
through a wilderness area. As the senior Senator from Alaska said, the 
State of Alaska has some 40 million acres of wilderness areas, so what 
on Earth are you talking about? Eight miles through a wilderness area? 
It just sounds like such an infinitesimal problem, who can possibly 
object? Who especially could object after hearing the two Senators from 
Alaska describe some of the people who died for lack of medical care.
  The problem I have with it is the bill assumes that the road is the 
only solution. If I believed it was the only solution, I would be a 
cosponsor of the amendment. But there is another imperative involved in 
it, and the Senator from Montana, who has performed yeoman service on 
this amendment today, has already pointed it out. And that is, building 
a road through wilderness in Alaska, no matter how short or how long, 
will be the first time in this Nation that we have deliberately 
authorized building a road through a wilderness area. Once you start 
down that road, nobody knows where it is going to end.
  I can tell you that probably 9 out of 10 people in my State, if you 
just present it to them as health care for people, they say, ``I don't 
understand the Government and the wilderness; that wilderness stuff 
never made much sense to me anyway.''
  It makes a lot of sense to me for a simple reason, and I had to come 
to the U.S. Senate before I really honed my conscience and my awareness 
of the fact that God just gave us one planet. He didn't say go ahead 
and throw all the greenhouse gases you can into the atmosphere or 
chlorofluorocarbons to destroy the ozone layer and I will give you 
another one after you destroy the ozone layer and after you bring on 
global warming, with all the disastrous consequences. When you get 
through mining all the land and leaving all those wonderful 
environmental disasters, God didn't say, ``I'll give you another one 
and give you a second chance to see if you can do better next time.''
  No, we only get one, and when you do irreversible damage to this 
planet, you are destroying your children's and your grandchildren's 
heritage and their future, and you do it mindlessly while standing on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate talking about education and health care 
and everything else to indicate how much you love your children. When 
it gets to something as arcane as building a road through a wilderness, 
who cares? But when you combine thousands of those little ``who 
cares?'' projects, the first thing you know, you have done a tremendous 
amount of damage.
  My staff gave me a thick briefing book, and I went through a good 
portion of it, but I guess I finally have to say the precedent worries 
me a lot. Once you start this, where do you stop? We have never done it 
before, and we ought not to start now.
  No. 2, there are a lot of alternatives that even the State of Alaska 
is now studying. The Transportation Department of Alaska is studying 
what some of the options are to solving this problem, which ones would 
be the best, most affordable, et cetera. The State of Alaska has taken 
no position on this, at least that is my understanding.
  Why are we not talking about establishing some medical facilities in 
King Cove? Why are we not talking about the use of Hovercraft? Senator 
Stevens got a provision put in the transportation bill for $142 million 
for new ferries in Alaska, and he got a provision put in the 
transportation bill to build a causeway to solve the very problem we 
are talking about here today. I don't know what happened with that. I 
understand there was some dissension in the ranks over there about the 
advisability of a causeway. I don't know. That even might be one of the 
solutions to this.
  There is an Indian Health Service in King Cove. We appropriate money 
every year in the Interior appropriations bill, in 1996 to the tune of 
$380,000 to that facility. Before we spend $30 million to build a road, 
why not just put $1 million into the health service

[[Page S11260]]

facility? Why not take the $30 million and put it in a trust fund and 
build a hospital, and then invite doctors up there and pay them 
$200,000, $300,000 a year to live there? That would be infinitely 
better than spending $27 million to $30 million on this road, 87 to 94 
percent of which Uncle Sugar will pick up the tab.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from Arkansas will yield.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if there is any reference in any material, as 
he suggests, that we are going to spend $20 million or $30 million for 
a road? I am sure he is aware there is no appropriation requested for 
any amount.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Of course. I understand the road will be built by the 
State of Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But I also understand the Federal share of that will be 
somewhere between 87 and 94 percent.
  You think with that kind of money and what you can do--if you just 
take the Federal share, cut Alaska out, take the 87 percent of whatever 
it is going to cost to build the road and establish a trust fund. I 
promise you, you will have doctors, you will have doctors and anybody 
you want, with the income from such a trust fund.
  But getting back to where I was a moment ago, you can improve the 
medical facilities there. You can consider Hovercraft. Hovercraft is 
not dependent on fog. You do not have to worry about fog conditions. A 
Hovercraft is one of the alternatives that the state is studying. 
Sometimes the waves may be too volatile to use Hovercraft. That is why 
a combination of various alternatives may be necessary.
  There is a man in Alaska named Dr. Peter Mjos who has written a 
letter. Dr. Mjos apparently is head of the Alaska Native Medical Center 
in Anchorage. It is a family practice center. He says:

       I've been asked, as the Eastern Aleutian Tribes Medical 
     Director, to comment on the proposed King Cove to Cold Bay 
     road. The primary concern which has been raised is that of 
     safely evacuating individuals with medical emergencies.
       Several concerns come to mind. On the surface, so to speak, 
     a road would appear to be the safest and easiest option, 
     however, the safety issue surrounding medi-vacs arises 
     primarily because of the extremely hazardous meteorologic 
     conditions which occur during an emergency. While flying is 
     obviously potentially hazardous--

  And listen to this--

       The proposed road in an Aleutian storm or blizzard could be 
     [just] as equally as hazardous when one considers nearly zero 
     visibility, nonexistence of other traffic over a [long] 
     distance of very isolated country, and, of course, the ever-
     present winter dangers of avalanches.

  What Dr. Mjos is saying is that a road is not a 100-percent solution 
either. There will be times when you will not be able to use the road--
a lot of ice, a lot of snow, avalanches in Alaska. He goes on to say:

       Of much greater expediency, then, I would strongly 
     recommend several measures which would first, markedly 
     decrease the number of medi-vacs and second, would probably 
     be more reliable in the event of emergencies necessitating 
     medi-vacs.
       Foremost would be the implementation of a state of the art 
     telemedicine system.

  My chief of staff here in Washington told me one time about her 
father when he was a young man suffered a head injury. And they took 
him to Fort Smith, AR, which was about 50 or 60 miles away. There were 
no neurosurgeons in Fort Smith, AR, so a family doctor there--or maybe 
he was a general surgeon; I do not know--they got a doctor in Oklahoma 
City on the phone, and this surgeon in Fort Smith held the phone up to 
his ear, and they operated on her father according to the way this 
neurosurgeon in Oklahoma City was telling him to do it.
  Telemedicine is a lot more advanced than that today, but I use that 
just as an illustration to say sometimes telemedicine works.

       Another option which would circumvent the hazards of 
     avalanches and isolated highway transportation would be that 
     of a state of the art ferry system which could operate in 
     virtually any climatic weather conditions. This would of 
     course obviate a drive on, drive off ferry with adequate 
     protection from unruly seas.

  This is from a doctor who is the Eastern Aleutian Tribes Medical 
Director.
  Here is a letter from Myron P. Naneng, Sr., who is President of the 
Association of Village Council Presidents. He is writing to Chairman 
Don Young over in the House.

       Dear Chairman Young: After careful examination of H.R. 
     2259--

  Essentially the same bill we are debating here--

     the King Cove Health and Safety Act of 1997, the Association 
     of Village Council Presidents, Inc. Waterfowl Conservation 
     Committee would like to request to be put on the record of 
     opposing such legislation. The bill provides for a transfer 
     of land interests in order to facilitate surface 
     transportation between the cities of Cold Bay and King Cove.
       Although we empathize with the community of King Cove's 
     difficulty with safe air transportation to Anchorage, we find 
     that the proposed road would seriously interfere in our 
     endeavors to resuscitate our migratory bird populations. . .

  And he goes on.
  Mr. President, I offer these things simply because the Senator from 
Alaska is correct. I have never been to Cold Bay or King Cove, either 
one. But apparently people who live there and who know the situation 
have been, and they oppose it.
  One of the most interesting things I have run across is this. No. 1--
the Senator from Montana has already covered this, and at the expense 
of being repetitious--Penn Air, the primary aircarrier between King 
Cove and Cold Bay, makes 1,800 one-way flights between King Cove and 
Cold Bay each year. That is 900 round trips. You divide that by 365, 
and that is about 2 1/3 round trips a day that Pen Air makes between 
King Cove and Cold Bay.
  Listen to this. Incidentally, three Pen Air flights have resulted in 
accidents in 20 years. Little Rock, AK, does not have a safety record 
that compares with that. There were 20 medevacs from King Cove between 
January 1996 and June 1997. That is roughly a year and a half--20 
medevacs. There was a delay for 5 of the 20; and of the 5 that were 
delayed, 4 of them were delayed by no more than 4 hours; and the 5th 
was successfully completed the next day.
  You hear a lot about 11 fatalities between 1981 and 1997; 11 
fatalities in that 16-year period. Six of the fatalities were the 
result of a plane that was en route from Kodiak that crashed into the 
mountain.
  I am going to tell you, flying around Alaska is no fun, under the 
best of conditions. When I was in Alaska they kept me scared to death--
the bush pilots. We are talking about a 16-year period; 11 fatalities, 
and 6 of those from a plane that crashed coming from Kodiak, coming 
from an island the opposite side of King Cove from Cold Bay. A road 
between King Cove and Cold Bay would not have prevented that.
  Another incident where one person was killed--this takes care of 7 of 
the 11 over a 16-year period--was by a pilot who flew within a complete 
whiteout condition after being warned not to do it.
  Mr. President, I am not sure of the statistics involving who died and 
how trying to get from King Cove to Cold Bay.
  I want to say to my friend from Alaska that after all the studies are 
done and it is determined that there is nothing else that is even 
feasible except building this road, then I will rethink my position. I 
don't blame the two Senators from Alaska for trying to honor the 
request of the people in their State on this.
  One thing that has not been talked about is helicopters. You can buy 
a regular ambulance helicopter for $4.7 million brand new; you can buy 
one used for $1.5 million. They can always operate safer, and more 
often, than fixed-wing aircraft in bad weather. They are used 
consistently by North Slope Borough Search and Rescue.
  I won't belabor this any further except to say we have studies 
ongoing by the Department of Transportation in Alaska. We ought to at 
least show them the courtesy of letting them report, and then make up 
our mind after we have seen a detailed study. We should not 
precipitously, here on the floor of the Senate, build the first road in 
a wilderness in the history of the country without at least giving it 
more than a passing thought.
  I would be willing to accept the amendment of the Senator from Alaska 
and we can just vote up or down on the bill if that is agreeable with 
him, if it is agreeable with some of my colleagues. I don't know how 
strongly my

[[Page S11261]]

good friend from Massachusetts feels, and I will be happy to yield to 
him in a moment.
  Finally, in my opinion--I have been wrong before in my opinions, but 
this one is, I think, fairly safe--in my opinion, this bill will be 
vetoed. I don't know of anything, other than the Republican tax bill, 
that the President feels more strongly about than this bill. The most 
current information is that if it were presented to the President, his 
senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. This is one of those 
bills, if you present it, it looks like you are being terribly cruel, 
until you examine it very carefully and see all of the information. I 
urge the President to veto the bill. It will be a very tough bill to 
veto. I don't know whether we can uphold the veto or not. I don't know 
how many votes we will get here this afternoon. He is absolutely 
determined to veto this bill.
  It is a legitimate thing to talk about, and I hope that the studies 
will show some alternate method of alleviating the problem other than 
building a road through the wilderness for the first time.
  I yield the Senator from Massachusetts such time as he may consume 
within the limits I have left. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ninety-two and a half minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. I think the arguments have been 
extraordinarily well covered in the course of the afternoon by the 
Senator from Montana, the Senator from Arkansas, and also the Senators 
from Alaska.
  I begin my comments by saying that I think this is one of those 
difficult issues we are called on to come to the floor and debate, 
argue about, and to decide. I regret that because, in a sense, all of 
what the Senator from Alaska said is extraordinarily compelling with 
respect to the plight of the citizens of King Cove. There is nobody 
here who is not sensitive to the need to provide access to health care 
and who isn't going to be concerned that guaranteed emergency medical 
services are available to people who need them. These are not just 
citizens of Alaska, these are our citizens, too.
  I think when we come to the floor of the Senate and make arguments on 
behalf of all of our citizens in rural areas, which is what we are 
talking about here. So I hope no one will construe in any way 
whatever--and I am confident my colleagues have both said this and feel 
it--the notion that anything we are saying suggests an insensitivity to 
the plight of the citizens of King Cove. But questions remain: What is 
the best response to that plight? What is the best way to deal with the 
effort to provide emergency medical services for people who clearly 
deserve them? There are, I think, simply rational, practical 
differences of opinion about how you balance the equities here.
  We have a $700,000 appropriation in the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations bill to the Corps of Engineers to study what options may 
be available in terms of alternate transportation for rural Alaska. So 
it is not as if this is an issue being looked at in a vacuum. It is 
already on the radar screen of the U.S. Congress. We are already trying 
to find out what different alternatives may be available. But all 
alternatives have to be weighed against what this bill would represent.
  We are talking about the first ever permanent new road construction 
in a federally-designated wilderness area--the first ever permanent new 
road construction which will be maintained.
  Now, it is true there are other miles of road within this wilderness 
area, but those were trails that were there before the area got its 
wilderness designation, and they are not being maintained. They will 
ultimately some day grow over, except to the degree that hunters and 
trekkers who may go up there use them, which is not sufficient, 
probably, to maintain them.
  The point we make is that a wilderness area is a wilderness area by 
definition. When you build a new road, you have taken away the notion 
of wilderness. The construction process alone is disruptive.
  I have heard reference on the floor in this debate to the minimal 
amount of traffic that may take place. But a road has to be maintained. 
There is also something illogical in the notion that a road that is 
being built as an alternative to inclement weather and problems of 
transportation--isn't Alaska going to present you with inclement 
problems in terms of road travel? A whiteout is a whiteout. Road and 
vehicular travel is as much affected by an effort to go through a 
whiteout and a blizzard as a flight. That raises many questions about 
other possibilities for this road.
  When I look at the sum, the Senator from Alaska suggests this is not 
going to be a Federal expenditure, but in point of fact, 90 percent of 
highway expenditures tend to come from the Federal Government even 
though they go through the State treasury. The fact is, the cost of a 
road is somewhere in the vicinity of $25 to $30 million. Just put $25 
million or $30 million in an interest-free account and take your 10 
percent or whatever, and you have $3 million of earnings a year. You 
could build a mighty fine clinic for 100 people for a tenth of that 
sum. In fact, you might even pay a young doctor $250,000 a year to sit 
there for a year if you really wanted to talk about cheaper 
alternatives, together with telemedicine giving you the capacity to do 
many things, not to mention the possibility of the Federal Government 
and other kinds of emergency transportation that could be made 
available.
  I think when you weigh the various options here that are being looked 
at now, you may in the end, as the Senator from Arkansas has suggested, 
come to the conclusion that this is the best alternative.
  But it seems to me that my colleagues would be well advised and well 
served to at least wait until the analysis is done in order to measure 
that against the enormous environmental precedent that is set by 
authorizing the first-ever permanent, maintained road in a wilderness 
area.
  Let me just speak for a moment about the environmental concerns of 
running a 30-mile road from King Cove to Cold Bay through the Izembek 
refuge and wilderness. Created in 1960, it is the Izembek National 
Wildlife Refuge is an internationally recognized wildlife refuge 
because it is a major stopover on the Pacific flyway for hundreds of 
thousands of migrating waterfowl and other migratory birds. For 
example, the entire North American population of Pacific black brant 
and most of the world's emperor geese use this isthmus as a crucial 
resting and feeding ground on their annual flights. These geese stop to 
feed on this isthmus and once airborne continue 60 hours of consecutive 
flight until they reach parts of southern California and Mexico, losing 
one-third of their body weight on the journey. Clearly, the protection 
of the feeding ground is critical to the health of these amazing birds.
  Additionally, wildlife abound throughout the refuge which serves as a 
key migration route for caribou herds as well as a denning ground for 
Alaskan brown bear. The proposed road would bisect the refuge's isthmus 
which narrows to less than three miles at some points. A road through 
this pristine habitat would be more than harmful to its wildlife.
  These are critical concerns. But we don't need to decide this issue 
today. Not doing that today does not deny any service whatsoever to the 
citizens of Alaska. I think everybody who stands here asking the Senate 
to weigh the impact as to precedent of the first-ever maintained new 
road in a wilderness area against the options that are being studied 
would have to agree that there is no rationale for rushing to judgment 
against those options.
  So I urge my colleagues, as difficult as I know it is--I certainly 
agree with the Senator from Arkansas. If the alternative proves that 
this is the way to go, then the Congress, I am sure, will join in a 
100-0 vote to make that happen. I would certainly be one of those to do 
that. But that is not where we find ourselves yet.
  So I urge colleagues to exercise restraint, wait for the results of 
the analysis, look at the alternatives, and measure that against the 
precedent of what would happen in terms of wilderness construction in 
this case.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time for my side.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 54 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, let 
me

[[Page S11262]]

point out a few things that are germane to the debate.
  The Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on October 15 on the 
issue of Cold Bay and reported the bill out of the committee. So to 
suggest that somehow this particular issue has not seen the light of 
day or committee action is inappropriate.
  We have heard in the discussion comments relative to the 
environmental impact of the road. If my assistant will help me, again I 
will show you pictures of the roads that are there. These aren't ghost 
roads, they are real roads. We have shown them to you before. That is 
the reality. These are the roads that are there. OK. Some of these 
roads are there and they are in the wilderness.
  Here is the map that shows where the roads break off and go into the 
wilderness, as opposed to those that are not in the wilderness. Few of 
the Members who have commented really want to reflect on this harsh 
reality. I will point out the roads in the wilderness that are there 
today. They are in the dark area here, as you can see with the pointer. 
This distinguishes the marking line that establishes the wilderness, so 
it is everything on the top of the picture that is wilderness.
  So the point is, there are roads in the wilderness. As we look at the 
environmental impact of those roads, they are what they are. They are 
dependent on about 100 people who live in Cold Bay and have access to 
those roads. Again, there are about 700 people in King Cove. So the 
impact is pretty small.
  Now, there was a mention by my friend from Montana that the reason 
the migratory waterfowl stopped in this area, you can recognize that it 
is a flat, tundra-like expanse with no trees. But the Senator from 
Montana knows the real reason that the black brants stopped there is 
for the eel grass; that is where the eel grass is, and they come and 
feed. He is quite correct.
  It is a unique day when, sometime in October, mid-October, and the 
wind currents are right, the brants take off, and their next point of 
landing is Cabo San Lucas in the Baja peninsula of Mexico. They 
actually go from this particular point, Izembek Bay, and they lose 
nearly a third of their body weight. The flight of these geese is 
really one of the wonders of the world. Hunting season is open by the 
U.S. Wildlife Service, and people hunt. I hunt, if I am able, with my 
friends, and we hunt geese. The lives of these geese are dependent on a 
number of factors. One is a recognition that hunting is allowed. This 
just isn't a plain wetlands, it is a unique wetlands. But the question 
is, Is it threatened by this activity? There is no evidence to suggest 
that it is threatened.
  Again, I emphasize this, and I think my friend from Massachusetts, in 
his comments a few minutes ago, missed the point. We are not talking 
about a road in the wilderness. He made the point that this would be 
the first road in the wilderness. This isn't a road in the wilderness, 
as I have said time and time again on the floor today. This is a land 
exchange. We are proposing to take the area in exchange by providing 
about 580 acres of additional wilderness in exchange for about 78 or 87 
acres, if you will.
  What we are going to do is do a refuge with the exchange. We are 
going to put this area into a refuge, and then we are going to add to 
the wilderness the yellow areas, which is a substantial increase of 580 
acres. It is a net, net, net gain.
  How can anybody who is interested in acquiring more wilderness be 
against this when there are 580 acres of additional wilderness being 
offered? We are doing a land exchange and putting the proposed road 
through the refuge. It is a big difference. We are not setting a 
precedent. I wish the staffs listening to this would recognize that 
there is no road going through a wilderness. There is a wilderness 
exchange. We are putting it in a refuge and it is a net, net increase.
  Hovercraft is an interesting mode of transportation. I wish it were a 
viable alternative. We have had lots of experience with Hovercraft in 
Alaska. They require a tremendous amount of maintenance. They are very 
expensive to operate. Mind you, we are talking about, again, 700 people 
in King Cove--a very small population. Who is going to underwrite the 
cost of the Hovercraft? You have to have it available year-round, and 
maintenance, and you have to have operating personnel.
  If you have ever been in a Hovercraft--and I have--they are a unique 
mode of transportation. They skid, because you have a lift from a fan 
that lifts the vehicle up over whatever it is, whether it is water, 
ice, or tundra. Then you have another fan that gives you movement 
ahead. But as you turn, you have no rudders. The Hovercraft has a 
tendency to skid because there is no rudder, in a sense, that basically 
digs in and gives immediate direction. You have to be careful when you 
are moving a Hovercraft and you come up on any cut banks. They will 
make a corner, but they skid as they go around the corner and you can 
bang into a cut bank where the edge of the river is and you could find 
yourself in trouble. It takes a good deal of experience to operate 
these, and the cost of operation is extremely high.
  We have roads all over the United States, and, sure, they cost money. 
People use them and they facilitate the lifestyle of the people. 
Somebody said $30 million could build the road. Well, you are pulling 
that out of some kind of a study, or whatever. These roads that are in 
these pictures certainly don't cost $30 million a mile. We have 
estimates that the type of road we are talking about is substantially 
less--somewhere less than $5 million or $6 million. You are not talking 
about anything substantial here, as the occupant of the Chair knows. 
There is no drainage on either side, and they are not ditched.
  There is another thing I am confounded about in this debate. They 
talk about avalanches. I defy anybody looking at this picture to tell 
me where the avalanche is going to come from. This is tundra. This is 
where you are talking about putting a road in the refuge. They are not 
talking about any avalanches in the refuge.
  Whether it is refuge, or, as my friend from Massachusetts indicates, 
wilderness, there are no cliffs. Where is the snow going to hang from 
to avalanche? There is near King Cove some hilly area, but that is in a 
different area than we are proposing a land exchange. That is really 
not part of the argument over whether you are going to have an 
avalanche potential. And, obviously, you have the potential of 
avalanches in areas where you have deep snow.
  King Cove isn't one of them, I might add. You have them in areas 
where you have heavy concentrations of snow, like Valdez, and other 
areas. That is not a legitimate concern. But to lump this in the 
arguments that we have a wilderness, a bird sanctuary, that we have 
avalanches and mountains, and we can duck hunt. You don't duck hunt 
from the mountains. It is a composite of the areas that we are talking 
about. But the land exchange is just what it is. It is in this tundra 
area, and you are not subjected, as indicated by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, to any extreme elements such as snow that would be 
put in their advisory, which they make available to all visitors.
  The state-of-the-art ferry we have discussed. Who is going to pay for 
it? A ferry suggests a crew, and several millions of dollars. We just 
built a new ferry. What was it, a couple hundred million dollars? 
Obviously, we are talking about a different type of ferry. It costs a 
lot of money.
  They talk about Penn Air. They do a fine job. We are talking about 
two trips a day. Do you know how many passengers that airplane carries 
in two trips a day? It is not a 747. It is not even a DC-3. It is a 
Piper Navajo. It carries six people. That is what you are looking at. 
They say, ``Wow. Two trips a day, 1100 in a year.'' That is a six-
passenger airplane.
  Another thing that I think is important to note as we debate this--
and the other side throws figures around--is the Congressional Budget 
Office has determined that this bill is revenue neutral. The point was 
made, ``Well, you know. If the State decides to build this road 
someday, it can use its share of Federal funds that the State 
receives.'' Who are any of you to criticize what our State determines 
are its priorities with its share of the Federal funds? The suggestion 
was made here on the floor a few minutes ago that you shouldn't. If you 
do, that is on this road in the refuge. That is nobody's business but 
Alaska's, thank you very much.
  We talk about, ``Well, let's put this off a little longer.'' We have 
been doing

[[Page S11263]]

it for 14 years. We have 10 studies. We have a book of them. I don't 
know.
  Mr. President, these aren't very well dusted off. But here are just 
about eight of the studies over the last 14 years. And some of you 
recommend that we continue to do what? Do nothing; do studies. I am 
sure that the people who do these studies are glad to hear that.
  There has been some talk about a causeway. What is a causeway, Mr. 
President? I know the occupant of the Chair knows what it is. It is 
kind of a road, isn't it? It is an access over an area called a 
causeway. It carries a road. This was the proposed study by the Corps 
of Engineers. Somebody suggested that $700,000 is in the bank. Well, I 
would be willing to make a small wager to any Member that we don't see 
that money. That $700,000, if it exists at all, in my opinion is pie in 
the sky at this time.
  The point is that while we look at alternatives, we have been looking 
at them for 14 years. We can look at them again. But the constituents 
that I have are saying enough is enough. We can study options until the 
cows come home.
  I noted that the Senator from Arkansas indicated that he had a letter 
from one Myron Naneng who is associated with the Association of Village 
Council Presidents. What my friend does not know about the AVCP is that 
their major concern is the spring bird hunt. The Senator from Montana 
knows. People, for their subsistence, are allowed to take migratory 
birds in the spring.
  What we have here is a little bitterness, if you will, which occurs 
sometimes between he, I, and others, differences of opinion. This 
particular AVCP individual has taken it upon himself to express his 
opinion, which he certainly has every right to do, but his interest is 
to protect the rights of the village council president to proceed with 
their spring bird hunts. I have supported that position as a 
subsistence use.
  There is also a criticism. They have a little infighting between the 
groups. There is a lack of support for a curtailment of the 
interception of the fisheries issue as far as fall trapping. There is a 
little dispute between the residents of King Cove and the village 
council presidents.
  So do not take this with a grain of salt, Mr. President, because the 
more appropriate reference is the attitude of the collective voice of 
the Native people of Alaska. That is expressed by the Alaska Federation 
of Natives.
  I have a letter here dated April 29 addressed to me.

       Dear Chairman Murkowski:
       Attached, please find a copy of the 1997 AFN Convention 
     resolution. This resolution is entitled ``A Resolution of the 
     Alaska Federation of Natives Supporting the Ability to Obtain 
     Right-of-Way Through National Wildlife Refuges for the 
     Necessity of Improving Health and Safety Issues in Alaska.'' 
     The Delegates to the 1997 Annual Convention of Alaska 
     Federation of Natives unanimously passed this resolution.
       I hope the resolution will assist you in passing 
     legislation involving King Cove for the purposes of obtaining 
     a right-of-way for that community through a land exchange.

  That is the voice of the Native people of Alaska.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record, and the accompanying resolution that passed at the 
convention.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc.,

                                    Anchorage, AK, April 29, 1998.
     Re S. 1092.

     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Chair, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Murkowski: Attached, please find a copy of 
     1997 AFN Convention Resolution 97-34 (hereafter ``97-34''). 
     This resolution is entitled ``A Resolution of the Alaska 
     Federation of Natives Supporting the Ability to Obtain Right-
     of-Way Through National Wildlife Refuges for the Necessity of 
     Improving Health and Safety Issues in Alaska.'' The delegates 
     to the 1997 Annual Convention of the Alaska Federation of 
     Natives (AFN) unanimously passed this resolution.
       97-34 states that the delegates to 1997 AFN Convention 
     support obtaining right-of-ways through national wildlife 
     refuges, including right-of-ways obtained through land 
     exchanges.
       I hope this resolution will assist you in passing 
     legislation involving King Cove for the purposes of obtaining 
     a right-of-way for that community through a land exchange.
       If you have any questions concerning this letter or the 
     attachment, please call me at AFN.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Julie Kitka,
     President.
                                  ____


Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., 1997 Annual Convention, Resolution 
97-34, A Resolution of the Alaska Federation of Natives Supporting the 
 Ability To Obtain Right-of-way Through National Wildlife Refuges for 
     the Necessity of Improving Health and Safety Issues in Alaska

       Whereas much of the access to and between rural Alaska 
     villages is either by plane; and
       Whereas the weather conditions are frequently inclement and 
     flying is often a life or death situation; and
       Whereas there have been numerous incidents of fatalities 
     due to trying to fly in bad weather or treacherous terrain; 
     in one community alone there have been 11 fatalities since 
     1981; and
       Whereas most right-of-ways can be obtained through a land 
     exchange with the affected village or regional corporations; 
     and
       Whereas the lands that are offered in exchange for the 
     right-of-way are desirous to the National Wildlife Refuge 
     managers; and
       Whereas there is a legislation pending in Congress that 
     dedicates right-of-ways through National Wildlife Refuges: 
     Now, therefore be it
       Resolved, that the delegates to the 1997. Annual Convention 
     of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., support the 
     ability to obtain right-of-ways through National Wildlife 
     Refuges for Health and Safety reasons.
       Sponsored by: The Aleut Corporation.
       Committee action: dos pass.
       Convention action: passed.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from the Alaska Native Brotherhood. In that 
particular letter, it says:

       The Juneau Camp of the Alaska Native Brotherhood supports 
     the Alaska Congressional Delegation effort to connect King 
     Salmon and Cold Bay.
       Please accept our appreciation for your efforts. This may 
     save a life, while responding to sensitive issues.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Alaska Native Brotherhood,


                                                   Camp No. 2,

                                        Juneau, AK, June 24, 1998.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: The Juneau Camp of the Alaska 
     Native Brotherhood supports the Alaska Congressional 
     Delegation effort to connect King Salmon and Cold Bay. We do 
     have occasion to meet with Alaska Native organizations on 
     subsistence issues and subsistence management. There are 
     discussions of local interest matters, such as fish and 
     wildlife habitat and access to interest areas. Persons of 
     these areas have contacted us on this matter.
       The Juneau ANB supports funding for the Izembek Road that 
     would provide safe access from Cold Bay to the King Salmon 
     areas. It is our understanding that wildlife habitat areas 
     would not be adversely affected, and that the Local Natives 
     do attend to habitat areas anyway.
       Please accept our appreciation for your efforts. This may 
     save a life, while responding to sensitive issues.
           Respectfully,
                                                 Jeffrey Anderson,
                                                        President.

  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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       As residents of Cold Bay, Alaska, we support the proposed 
     road between our community and King Cove. Furthermore, we 
     recognize the existence of roads in the wilderness area and 
     drive these roads, along with non-residents who fly into Cold 
     Bay, for access to hunting grounds.

  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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        King Cove Clinic Medivacs From April 1998 to Present Day

       April 3: Chest Pain, Airplane, 2 hr. delay;
       April 14: Chest Pain, Airplane, \1/2\ hr. delay;
       May 5: Abdominal Pain, Airplane, 1 hr. delay;
       May 11: Chest Pain, Airplane, No delay;
       May 31: Chest Pain, Airplane, No delay;
       June 19: Abdominal Pain, Airplane, No delay;
       June 24: Abdominal Pain, Airplane, No delay;
       June 26: Chest Pain, Airplane, No delay;
       June 27: Baby Fever of Unknown Origin, Airplane, No delay;
       July 5: Possible Tendon Laceration, Airplane, 1 day delay;

[[Page S11264]]

       July 6: Chest Pain, Airplane, 3 hr. delay;
       July 28: Abdominal Pain, Helicopter, 1 day delay;
       July 28: Abdominal Pain, Helicopter, 1 day delay;
       August 9: Miscarriage, Airplane, No delay; and
       August 28: Pneumonia, Airplane, 1 hr. delay.

  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

[[Page S11265]]

     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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 19 minutes 18 
seconds; 85 minutes 11 seconds for the other side.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I retain the remainder of my time. I am not sure what 
the leadership has in mind. It is my understanding there might be an 
opportunity for a vote around 5 o'clock. If that is likely to occur, it 
is almost 5 o'clock.
  I think there is a special briefing going on at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. A lot of 
facts have come out. I might just note parenthetically, I chuckled a 
little bit. Here we are at the late stages of this debate. I concede to 
the Senator he has won the chart war. I have never seen so many charts 
in a debate in all my life. I acknowledge to the Senator he has a lot 
more charts than I have, and they are pretty good charts.
  Also, he has all that staff there. I see the army--there are about 10 
back there on his side. He has won the staff war. We have only a couple 
or three on our side. He has won the chart war. He has won the staff 
war. And he has also won the time war. He has used a lot more time than 
we have. I will be very brief.
  Basically, there are a couple of points I want to make for the 
Record, for the Senator. He asked, very interestingly: Nobody has 
answered the point that the Secretary of the Interior, the refuge 
manager, basically controls this road.
  The fact is, in the bill itself there are provisions that the refuge 
manager--that is, the Secretary of the Interior--works with--I think it 
is the Aleutian Boroughs--to try to come up with a Joint Plan for the 
operation of the road. But the bill further provides, if no agreement 
is reached, that the borough controls. The borough can just decide 
within 24 months that that is what it wants to do.
  So it is not quite accurate to say this road is under the control of 
the Department of the Interior. The fact is, as a practical matter, 
maybe earlier, but certainly within 24 months, this road is under the 
control--if there is a road--of the State.
  The second point: The State of Alaska is not for this road. The State 
of Alaska takes no position on this road. We do not have any 
correspondence from the State of Alaska, particularly from the 
Transportation Department of the State of Alaska, saying we want this 
road, we support this bill. There is nothing that says, ``We support 
this bill.'' Rather, the State department takes no position.
  Let me just read what the Transportation Department of Alaska says: 
``You have inquired about the status of our study efforts, etc.'' I 
will not read the whole letter.
  Basically, the letter concludes on page 2:


[[Page S11266]]


       Until the Transportation Needs Assessment and the 
     Facilities Concept Report have been completed, we will not be 
     in a position to propose the preferred alternative nor will 
     we know how the King Cove-Cold Bay project is rated against 
     other transportation projects. Therefore we have no position 
     on the legislation currently pending in Congress.
  I think that is because that is a sound conclusion. That is why the 
State of Alaska, at least the department of transportation, takes that 
position because it makes sense. There is the basic study that is going 
on. It is an Alaska study. My good friend from Alaska says, ``Gee, we 
have enough studies here.'' My answer is, light a fire under the State; 
get them to conclude the study.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator----
  Mr. BAUCUS. When I finish I will. Let them conclude the study so the 
State can recommend what alternative makes the most sense.
  He also said, ``I don't know where the $700,000 is.'' It is in the 
transportation appropriations bill right now. It passed the Senate. The 
language is there.
  I don't want to get in tit-for-tat business. It is not productive. He 
made the statement implying maybe this Senator has no idea about bottom 
fishing in Alaska and what the economics are.
  I am actually getting my view--it is not my view, but I am reporting 
what the Alaska Intermodal Transportation Plan says. It has a statement 
on page 13 of its plan. This is dated October of 1994. I grant it is a 
few years old.
  Essentially, it says King Cove's economy is almost exclusively 
dependent upon fishing and fish processing. It has been a major fishing 
center in southwest Alaska for over 75 years. The salmon cannery has 
operated since 1911; crab processing since 1958; fish roe processing 
since 1960. In the seventies and eighties, the bottom fishing industry 
expanded. Peter Pan Seafoods is the largest employer, employing 250 to 
300 persons in its cannery operation in King Cove. Commercial fishing 
accounts for approximately 100 jobs.
  It goes on to say that because of limited access, today the seafood 
market in King Cove is restricted. I am reporting from the Alaska 
report. It further provides that most product is sold directly to Peter 
Pan. Peter Pan now moves some fresh fish--fresh fish--into niche 
markets they have identified with low volumes. Without alternatives, 
commercial fishermen must settle for the going rate of about 35 cents 
to 40 cents a pound.
  It goes on to say it is estimated that with better access--that is 
most probably the road to Cold Bay--to fresh fish markets, the same 
fish could be sold at a price of upwards of 70 to 80 cents a pound, 
nearly double what fishermen now receive.
  It goes on to say essentially that this access would provide for a 
lot more fresh fish access in addition to the frozen. Basically, 5 
percent of their processing production, which would be close to 2 
million pounds a year, will be moved by road to an airport to fly 
directly to fresh fish markets.
  I am just answering the Senator by saying this is what the State of 
Alaska says. I take the Alaska Intermodal Transportation Plan at its 
word, but if they are incorrect, then I stand to be corrected.
  The point about whether this cuts into a wilderness area or not, it 
is pretty clear that this road we are talking about does. By the way, 
when the Senator showed a picture of the tundra, he said, ``Oh, there 
are no avalanches here.'' What he was not showing is sections of the 
road down here which bisects streams and mountain areas, that is where 
the avalanches would occur. They would not occur up closer to Cold Bay. 
But this road does cut this wilderness in half.
  This is the whole area, basically, we are talking about, where the 
waterfowl feed. This is the road that would go up here and down back 
around to Cold Bay. With truck traffic from the processing plant and 
the other traffic on the road, it is pretty clear it would bisect the 
area.
  It is constructing a new road in a wilderness. The Senator says that 
is not true. I think it is true, and I will let people decide for 
themselves whether it is true or not. I say it is true because here is 
the wilderness right now and there is the road. It looks like to me 
there is a road in the wilderness area.
  The response is, ``We will just take that out of wilderness and put 
the road there, and because we take the wilderness away, it is not a 
road in wilderness.'' That is too clever by half, Mr. President. We 
know what is going on here. It is a road in the wilderness. We have 
never done that. We have not constructed a road through wilderness from 
one point outside wilderness to another point outside wilderness. We 
have never done that; never.
  I recognize that we may have to do that. If the only option to 
provide medical care and emergency services is a road, but we don't 
know that yet. There are a lot of options being studied. I say let's 
let the State of Alaska complete its study, or the $700,000 the senior 
Senator from Alaska put in the appropriations bill to study rural 
access, then we will see. If it turns out we have to have this road, I 
will be one of the first Senators to stand on this floor and reconsider 
my position, but we are not there yet. I don't think we should take 
precipitous action today and prejudge by saying we have to build this 
road.
  Finally, on another point, the President will veto this bill if it 
passes. I hope it doesn't pass, but if it does pass, he will veto it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a statement of administration policy be 
printed in the Record.
  I will read the first sentence:

       The Administration strongly opposes S. 1092, and, if 
     presented to the President, his senior advisers would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)
       The Administration strongly opposes S. 1092, as amended, if 
     presented to the President, his senior advisers would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.
       S. 1092 would create an objectionable and unprecedented 
     perpetual right-of-way through portions of the Izembek 
     National Wildlife Refuge and Izembek Wilderness for building 
     a public road and maintaining utility-related fixtures 
     between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay in Alaska. 
     Specifically, S. 1092 would set a precedent by removing lands 
     from wilderness in a land exchange to build a new road. S. 
     1092 is not compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge 
     was established and would waive important environmental laws. 
     As a result, S. 1092 would disrupt the habitat of many 
     important species, including internationally-unique waterfowl 
     populations and cause irreparable damage to the ecological 
     integrity of this pristine wilderness area. Finally, the bill 
     would undermine the intent of the recently enacted bipartisan 
     ``National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.''
       The Administration recognizes the need to ensure adequate 
     emergency medical care for the remote community of King Cove. 
     The Administration will continue working with the State of 
     Alaska and other interested parties to explore different 
     transportation alternatives.

  Mr. BAUCUS. In summation, I thank the Senator for the debate. It has 
been a good debate. We have been here, what, almost 5 hours. The 
Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from 
Tennessee, both Senators from Alaska have argued this issue. I thank 
the Senator, again, for taking this issue up on the floor and not as a 
rider on the appropriations bill. That is the better way to make public 
policy.
  Mr. President, I don't think there are any more speakers on our side. 
We are ready to accept the amendment and at the appropriate time vote 
on the bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Alaska.
  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

[[Page S11267]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I just ask the Senator to withhold 
for a moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska object?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object, if I may, for just a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 74 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Seventy-four minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-four minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I ask unanimous consent to reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the Senator from Massachusetts 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator 
from Arkansas. And I ask unanimous consent that my comments be placed 
in the Record not to interfere with the debate that has been taking 
place and will take place further this evening on this important issue. 
And I will address the Senate on a different issue in question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time now, as we reach the midpart 
of this week, and as we are looking forward to going into next week for 
the probably 6 days that remain in this session--maybe 7 days, maybe 
even a few more days, if necessary--we are running into the final days 
of this particular session. It does seem to me to suggest that we ought 
to spend our time addressing those matters which are of central 
importance and consequence and seriousness to the American people.
  I know on the issue that is before the Senate at the present time 
that this will be disposed of either later this evening--and I will not 
interfere should the managers themselves want to have the final 
disposition of that this evening--but I have understood that the final 
disposition on this particular proposal would probably carry over to 
tomorrow.
  So I wanted to address the Senate on another issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, did the Senator indicate he thought this 
issue would carry over until tomorrow--this issue?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am not either the manager nor the proponent of that, 
but I understand I do have the 30 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What I was saying is that I indicated that if both those 
for it or against it wanted to move ahead with the vote, that I would 
not interfere with that. But I am told at this time that that is not 
the case, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to my colleague from Alaska. We do want to go 
ahead with this vote on the matter tonight, if possible.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator, but I----
  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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was yielded this time. I understand you 
are ready and the others are not.
  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?

[[Page S11268]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield briefly, Mr. President.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might respond to the Senator from Alaska, we do have 
more time required on our side in the sense that we are not ready for a 
vote for about a half hour or later. If that is the case, it probably 
makes sense for the Senator from Massachusetts to proceed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I tried to have an opportunity to 
address the Senate through the course of the afternoon and appreciated 
the courtesies of our colleagues for that time.
  How much time do I have remaining on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator has 26 minutes 
remaining.
  (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Durbin are 
printed later in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the 
remainder of my time if the Senator from Alaska is also.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, if the Senator from Alaska is prepared, 
we are prepared to accept his amendment which is the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 3676 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3676) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  It appears to be sufficiently seconded.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the 
Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith Bob (NH)
     Smith Gordon H (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Abraham
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Glenn
     Gregg
     Moseley-Braun
  The bill (S. 1092), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1092

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``King Cove Health and Safety 
     Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) King Cove, Alaska is a community in the westernmost 
     region of the Alaska Peninsula with a population of roughly 
     800 full-time residents and an additional 400 to 600 workers 
     who are transported in and out of the community a number of 
     times a year to work in the local fish processing plant and 
     on fishing vessels;
       (2) the majority of the full-time residents are indigenous 
     Native peoples of Aleut ancestry that have resided in the 
     region for over 5,000 years;
       (3) the only mode of access to or from King Cove is via 
     small aircraft or fishing boat, and the weather patterns are 
     so severe and unpredictable that King Cove is one of the 
     worst places in all of the United States to access by either 
     of these modes of transportation;
       (4) the State of Alaska has initiated the King Cove to Cold 
     Bay Transportation Improvement Assessment to confirm the need 
     for transportation improvements for King Cove and to identify 
     alternative methods of improving transportation access with 
     comprehensive environmental and economic review of each 
     alternative;
       (5) the State of Alaska has identified a road between King 
     Cove and Cold Bay as one of the alternatives to be evaluated 
     in the transportation planning process but for a road to be a 
     viable option for the State of Alaska, the Congress must 
     grant a legislative easement within the Izembek National 
     Wildlife Refuge (``Refuge'') across approximately seven miles 
     of wilderness land owned by the Federal Government;
       (6) there are fourteen miles of roads within the wilderness 
     boundary of the Refuge which are currently traveled by 
     vehicles;
       (7) any road constructed in accordance with such easement 
     would be an unpaved, one-lane road sufficient in width to 
     satisfy State law; and
       (8) the combined communities of King Cove and Cold Bay have 
     approximately 250 vehicles.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to establish a surface 
     transportation easement across Federal lands within the 
     Refuge and to transfer 664 acres of high value habitat lands 
     adjacent to the Refuge in fee simple from the King Cove 
     Corporation to the Federal Government as new wilderness lands 
     within the Refuge in exchange for redesignating a narrow 
     corridor of land within the Refuge as nonwilderness lands.

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE.

       If the King Cove Corporation offers to transfer to the 
     United States all right, title, and interest of the 
     Corporation in and to all land owned by the Corporation in 
     Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of T 57 S, R 88 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska, and any improvements thereon, the Secretary 
     of the Interior (``Secretary'') shall, not later than 30 days 
     after such offer, grant the Aleutians East Borough a 
     perpetual right-of-way of 60 feet in width through the lands 
     described in sections 6 and 7 of this Act for the 
     construction, operation and maintenance of certain utility-
     related fixtures and of a public road between the city of 
     Cold Bay, Alaska, and the city of King Cove, Alaska and 
     accept the transfer of the offered lands. Upon transfer to 
     the United States, such lands shall be managed in accordance 
     with section 1302(i) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act, shall be included within the Refuge, and 
     shall be managed as wilderness.

     SEC. 5. RIGHT-OF-WAY.

       Unless otherwise agreed to by the Secretary and the 
     Aleutians East Borough, the right-of-way granted under 
     section 4 shall--
       (1) include sufficient lands for logistical staging areas 
     and construction material sites used for the construction and 
     maintenance of an unpaved, one-lane public road sufficient in 
     width to meet the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy 
     State law;
       (2) meet all requirements for a public highway right-of-way 
     under the laws of the State of Alaska; and
       (3) include the right for the Aleutians East Borough, or 
     its assignees, to construct, operate, and maintain 
     electrical, telephone, or other utility facilities and 
     structures within the right-of-way.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING CHANGE.

       Upon the offer of Corporation lands under section 4, the 
     boundaries of the wilderness area within the Refuge are 
     modified to exclude from wilderness designation a 100 foot 
     wide corridor to accommodate the right-of-way within the 
     following land sections:
       (1) Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 
     30, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
       (2) Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, 
     R 88 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
       (3) Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 of T 57 S, R 89 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska.

     SEC. 7. RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATION.

       Unless otherwise agreed to by the Secretary and the 
     Aleutians East Borough, the

[[Page S11269]]

     right-of-way granted under section 4 shall be located 
     within--
       (1) sections 2, 3, 10, and 11 of T 59 S, R 86 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska;
       (2) sections 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of T 59 
     S, R 86 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (3) sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 
     and 36 of T 58 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (4) sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 32, 
     33, and 34 of T 57 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (5) sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 
     30, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, R 87 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (6) sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36 of T 56 S, 
     R 88 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
       (7) section 6 of T 57 S, R 88 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska; 
     and
       (8) sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 of T 57 S, R 89 W, Seward 
     Meridian, Alaska.

     SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The following provisions of law shall not be applicable to 
     any right-of-way granted under section 4 of this Act or to 
     any road constructed on such right-of-way--
       (1) section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1621(g));
       (2) title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.), except as 
     specified in this section; and
       (3) section 303(c) of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 9. JOINT PLAN.

       The Secretary and the Aleutians East Borough shall jointly 
     prepare a plan setting forth--
       (1) the times of the year a road may reasonably be 
     constructed when there are not high concentrations of 
     migratory birds in Kinzarof Lagoon; and
       (2) limitations on nonemergency road traffic during periods 
     of the year when there are high concentrations of migratory 
     birds in Kinzarof Lagoon.

     SEC. 10. TRANSFER.

       If within 24 months of the date the King Cove Corporation 
     offers to transfer to the United States all right, title, and 
     interest of the Corporation lands set forth in section 4 of 
     this Act, the Secretary and the Aleutians East Borough fail 
     to mutually agree on the following--
       (1) a final land exchange and a grant of a right-of-way 
     pursuant to section 4; and
       (2) the right-of-way specifications, and terms and 
     conditions of use set forth in sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this 
     Act;

     then the Aleutians East Borough shall have the right to 
     select a 60 foot right-of-way for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of certain utility-related 
     fixtures and of a public road from lands described in section 
     7 of this Act, and to identify logistical staging areas and 
     construction material sites within the right-of-way. If an 
     agreement is not reached within 6 months after the Aleutians 
     East Borough notifies the Secretary of its selection, then 
     the right-of-way is hereby granted to the Borough.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  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.

                          ____________________