Energy Policy Act of 2003

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 2002, Congress passed legislation providing more than $270 billion for farmers over a 6-year period. This included price support programs for commodities such as: wheat, cotton, rice, oilseeds, dairy products, peanuts, sugar, wool, and honey, just to name a few. This is not to mention other programs in existence today that buoy the price of products like lamb meat and apples.

Our Nation's farmers receive subsidies for their product through the Commodity Credit Corporation, to ensure their economic livelihood when market prices are low.

Overall, in 2000, corporate credit payments reached a record $32.3 billion for all farm-related programs and activities.

Also in 2002, the President imposed safeguard tariffs of up to 30 percent on a broad range of steel products. There were anti-dumping and countervailing duties of 29 percent slapped on imports of softwood lumber from Canada.

Taken together, 2002 was a banner year for industries seeking relief from foreign competition.

Just recently, the U.S. International Trade Commission upheld a determination to impose import duties on Vietnamese catfish—actually, basa—of up to 64 percent, a victory for domestic catfish farmers.

Unlike those other industries in the United States that face foreign competition, America's salmon fishermen are not on the receiving end of Federal largess. There are no safeguard tariffs put in place, nor are price supports implemented to aid this important industry. Suppliers of imported salmon do not face tariff rate quotas that benefit so many other domestic industries.

In 2002, America's salmon fishermen faced imports of nearly $400 million worth of Chilean salmon, the vast majority of which is farm-raised, which we consider to be a distinctly inferior salmon to the wild-caught salmon that comes from Alaskan waters. By comparison, in 1997, Chile imported less than $200 million worth of salmon. The amount of imports from that country has sky-rocketed in the past few years.

There is a direct correlation between the increasing amount of imported Chilean salmon and the decline in price that fishermen receive for their catch.

Between 1998 and 2002, Chilean salmon exports to the United States more than doubled from just less than 51,000 metric tons to over 102,000 metric tons. During the same time period, the price of sockeye, or red salmon, fell from $1.23 a pound to $0.55 a pound.

Now, while Alaskan fishermen are being put out of work by these increasing imports, Congress is set to provide preferential trade status to Chilean companies, to provide Chilean companies with greater access to the United States' marketplace.

I fully support the concept of free and fair trade. I recognize the benefits that trade gives to developing nations: strengthening a market economy; growing a middle class; and promoting the seeds of democracy.

Trade provides the American consumer with the ability to purchase a quality product at a reasonable price.

I also appreciate that many American companies support this preferential trade agreement as a means to level the playing field with Canadian and European competition. I am concerned, however, that this trade agreement is not fair to the State of Alaska and Alaska's fishermen.

This past April, I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick outlining my concerns about the impact a Chile Free Trade Agreement would have on Alaska's fishermen. The response I received suggested that the provisions of this preferential trade agreement "strike a reasonable balance between the very strong export interests of Chile, and the concerns of Alaskan salmon producers."

I have to ask, at what point are the concerns of Alaska's salmon producers ever addressed in this trade agreement? How is eliminating all tariffs on imported salmon a reasonable balance to putting Alaskan fishermen out of work?

I am told that Chile will eliminate all of its duties on fresh and prepared seafood products—that the United States is Chile's seventh largest supplier of fresh and frozen seafood—that this is a reasonable balance.

For a reality check, let's look at the numbers. And these numbers come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service.

Again, in 2002, Chile exported nearly $400 million worth of salmon to the United States. Over 100,000 metric tons.

On the other side of the equation, in 2002 the United States exported just $3,000—not millions—worth of canned salmon and zero dollars worth of salmon not in a can. So we have $3,000 versus $400 million.

In whose book is this a reasonable balance for America's salmon fishermen and Alaska's fishing-dependent communities? It is not just the salmon we are talking about. In 2002, Chile imported a total of $809 worth of fishery products from the United States, the vast majority of which fell under the catchall category of "other fishery products."

And while we are busy putting Americans out of work, they have nowhere to turn to seek relief. Alaska fishermen are not generally eligible for traditional trade adjustment assistance programs. They are self-employed and not part of a firm or group of workers.

Many fishermen independently own and operate their vessel with the help of their family, selling their catch to the local fish processor or cannery. They do not work for a company or firm, nor do they receive unemployment benefits when they are unable to fish.

In essence, America's fishermen have been, for too long, treated like a second-class citizen when compared with America's farmers or steel workers. While these workers have their income supplemented by federal dollars, fishermen face foreign competition to the best of their ability. And trade agreements like this, only deepen their plight.

As a result, I cannot support granting preferential trading rights to Chilean companies.

Not when Alaskan fishermen are being put out of work because of increasing imports of farm-raised salmon. Alaskan fishermen will tell you receiving TAA benefits would be nice, but it is not the same as being able to do their jobs, to put food on their tables to feed their families, to ensure that their children are cared for and have a future filled with hope.

Our fishermen face an uphill battle in keeping their jobs when faced with the onslaught of imported Chilean salmon. Maybe the rest of the nation benefits from this trade agreement. Alaska suffers.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.