Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to Senator Byrd so he might make a response to my statement on my amendment and that I regain the floor after Senator Byrd has finished his statement on my amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I shall read and reconsider the substitute based upon the Senator's detailed objections. I withdraw my amendment. Pursuant to section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget, I raise a point of order against the two emergency designations set out in provision C of the committee- reported amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, does the Senator from West Virginia need additional time now?

Mr. STEVENS. I will be happy to yield 10 minutes of our time to the Senator from West Virginia and shift it over to his control. Let me briefly state the position of this Senator on the motion to waive. As I have stated, the President, as Commander in Chief in a time of war, has said he believes he has requested ample money to take him through to the time when he will submit, based on Governor Ridge's report to him, the moneys that are necessary to conduct the homeland defense for the United States. He has also said he believes we have now sufficient funds to pursue the war that is being conducted against global terrorism based on the moneys that have been presented in section A of this bill, and the additional moneys for defense in section B of this bill. Those moneys are presented pursuant to the act of September 14, which specified that not less than $20 billion of the moneys involved would go to New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to help react to the events of September 11. My amendment--I have withdrawn it now, but I will offer it again probably in the morning--does not change that law. Nothing in the proposal of the Senator from West Virginia changes the September 14 law, as I understand it. He seeks to add to it, but he does not change that, and that law guarantees $20 billion. Now, I do not have my tie on to take on the Senator from New York as I might normally. That will be tomorrow probably, but right now let me say to the Senator from New York, no one knows disasters in the United States like Alaskans. We have an earthquake about every week. We have tidal waves. We have tornados, floods. We understand emergencies. We have not said New York did not suffer an emergency. We have merely, by this point of order, said emergency money is not needed now to meet the needs of the people affected by September 11 because with this bill, we have put up a total of $40 billion, plus the moneys that are in the bill itself. They cannot even come near to be spent before we can get the next supplemental out. I am informed that New York has only requested so far less than $5 billion of the money to which it is entitled. I do not mind being a whipping boy. You play with the cards you are dealt. My role is to try to get this bill to conference. I want the bill enacted before Christmas. I think New York is better off to have it enacted before Christmas. I do not think it can be enacted before Christmas if we have a situation where we have a veto of this bill. I do not think we should be challenging the President of the United States. I remember standing in this Chamber as the chairman of the committee asking for money for the former President of the United States to conduct two wars against which I voted. I have always honored the request of the President of the United States with regard to defense and emergencies, too. I remember standing in the Chamber and asking for money to replace the money that the former President of the United States used under the Food and Forage Act to conduct activities in Kosovo and Bosnia, that I opposed. This is no precedent. This is a procedure established to assure the Congress agrees with the designation of emergency in terms of spending. We are not saying there was not an emergency on September 11. Anyone who watched the television--and I did visit ground zero. God knows there was an emergency up there and one that will be ongoing, but New York is not going to be rebuilt before March of next year. The money in this bill, the $40 billion, cannot be spent before March of next year. There is no necessity for additional money now. There will be a necessity to respond to the President's request next spring. Therefore, I believe the motion to waive is not necessary, and I oppose it.

Mr. STEVENS. We yielded 10 minutes of our time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Oklahoma seek time?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that John Kem, Kraig Siracuse, Sid Ashworth, Alycia Farrell, and Andrew Givens of the Appropriations Committee staff, and Mark Robbins of my staff, be granted floor privileges during consideration of H.R. 3338.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. In parts of the State, it has increased nearly tenfold. In the area of the pipeline, this 800-mile pipeline, without question every one of the herds has increased by at least a magnitude of 4, some as much as 9 times. In fact, two of the herds now stay nearer to production areas because the food and the improvement of their habitat has been so great. By the way, because of acts of the oil industry, they went to our university and developed new strains of grasses and new approaches to vegetation, and those caribou herds do not migrate at all. The one that comes to the plain of the Arctic area into this 1002 area each year, it comes in from Canada. It migrates up. It spends 6 weeks up in the summertime. The Senator's question is very pertinent.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am glad to have been here when the Senator from Massachusetts was speaking. He is a friend. We have visited one another and have shared the privilege of having wives who are great friends. I say to my friend from Massachusetts, I hope if I ever stand on the floor of the Senate and make a pledge on behalf of the people of Alaska to do something for Massachusetts that my successors will honor that. I stood here and debated with the predecessor of the Senator from Massachusetts for a long period of time in 1977, 1978, and 1979. We finally ended up in Senator Jackson's hideaway for 3 days around the clock, and I mean around the clock. We reached a conclusion, and that conclusion was an offer from the Senator from Massachusetts to me. It was: We will set aside 1.5 million acres up there so you can go ahead with that oil and gas development, but let us create this system of withdrawals in this State. Almost 100 million acres in Alaska were set aside at that time. For 9 years in this Chamber we debated what was a national interest of Alaska's land. Nine years, Mr. President, and the Senator from Massachusetts, God rest his soul, Paul Tsongas, said in Senator Jackson's office: We can work this out. If you are willing to be reasonable, we will be reasonable. We will guarantee you that 1.5 million acres will be explored. Look at his record. In fact, when the time comes to get down to debating whether or not this bill will pass, I hope it will be considered by the Senate as the Alaska pipeline was, as that 1980 act was: without filibuster. The pipeline was made available to people in the United States by one vote. Vice President Agnew broke the tie and gave us the Alaska pipeline, which has brought 13 billion barrels of oil to the United States. I hear the estimates that we have nothing more than a 6-month supply in ANWR. That is ridiculous. At the time we were debating the Alaska pipeline, they told us there would be approximately 1 billion barrels of oil, if you are successful. We have already produced 13 billion barrels of oil, and we have a 15- to 20-year supply at the current rate, but that is not keeping the pipeline full. People say: Why do you want to go ahead with ANWR now? During the Persian Gulf war, there were 2.1 million barrels a day of oil sent to the south 48 from the Alaska pipeline. Today, it is 1.2. The pipeline is no longer full. The cost of Alaskan oil is going up because it is not full. We know there is oil to be produced. This 6-month supply theory is a very interesting thing. I will stand on the other side of my chart so my friend can see it perhaps. This is a chart that shows what happens with increased production. If we have no new production in Alaska, this is the flow of oil out to 2050. If we produce in the Central part of Alaska, this is the flow of additional oil. If we go through the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska--which is another area set aside, by the way, by President Harding after the Teapot Dome. It has never really been produced. Again, my friend does not like to be called a radical environmentalist. I think that is better than extreme environmentalist. In any event, this oil is not available to us because we cannot get in there to drill, either. The important thing is, this is ANWR. If ANWR comes in, this is the increase in oil over this period between now and 2050 to the United States. Look at it. It is more than what is there now. We believe there is more oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area which is 1.5 million acres that was set aside for oil and gas production than we have in all of Alaska's remaining lands now. This area is the most important area for our energy sufficiency. I am not talking about energy independence. It may be we could not get to be energy independent, but think about this: This area is basically not available to us. Access to the major pieces of the Outer Continental Shelf is not available to us. The entire NPRA is not available to us, and ANWR is not available to us. Look what would happen in the next 20 years if we did have it available to us. We would get up to the point where we are producing a great deal more, more than twice as much oil as we have available today from domestic production. Now that is energy sufficiency and it is energy independence in the sense of being able to exist through a period of crisis with our own production. My friend wants to ask a question. I am glad to answer any question he has.

Mr. STEVENS. No, that is not correct. That is the medium assumption.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Hawaii asked a very good question. At the time that Prudhoe Bay was developed, we did not have today's advanced technologies, such as horizontal drilling. We can access the oil and gas from the entire 1.5 million acre area of this sedimentary basin from just 2,000 acres.

Mr. STEVENS. We are talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. STEVENS. It is 19 million acres. It was 9 million acres before 1980 as the Arctic Wildlife Range.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. That is 10.3 billion barrels. Again, I point out to my friend from Massachusetts, the estimate for the existing area of Prudhoe Bay was 1 billion barrels. We have produced 13 billion so far. The mean estimate is 10.3. We believe it is a lot bigger than that. If oil is there, it is big. It is the biggest sedimentary basin on the North American continent if it contains oil. We do not know yet, but we will not know until we drill. The real point is, though, we can have a decided improvement in our ability to rely upon our own sources in the event of a crisis if we really go in and open up this area and it is producible. Remember, it takes an act of Congress to open up. It is the only place in the United States where the Mineral Leasing Act was qualified by a provision of Congress, and I agreed to that. That was a Tsongas provision. It will take an act of Congress, passed by both Houses and signed by the President, to do this oil and gas exploration. The area remains subject to oil and gas exploration until it has been explored. This will not become part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until it is explored. It is reserved for oil and gas exploration, in effect, until we get permission to go in to see if it is there or not.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Connecticut was in this Chamber addressing the Senate concerning the days that President Eisenhower and his administration considered lands in Alaska. That is of particular importance to me because I was there. I was the assistant to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. I was in the meetings with President Eisenhower. And I am happy to tell the Senate what the President did and what the Secretary of the Interior did. Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman has been misinformed. The Eisenhower administration withdrew 9 million acres of the northwest corner of Alaska as the Arctic Wildlife Range. It was the Arctic wildlife range, not a refuge. At that time the order specifically provided that oil and gas exploration and development would be permitted under stipulations to protect the flora, fauna, fish, and wildlife of that portion of Alaska. Subsequent administrations did not issue such stipulations so no oil and gas exploration took place. However, as time went by and I then became a Member of the Senate, we dealt with the settlement of the Alaska Native land claims. Those claims were settled by an act of Congress in 1971. In that basic law, which we called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, there was a provision in section 17(d)(2) that required the study of national interest lands in Alaska. That was one of the requirements that was demanded of us, that we agree to the study of which lands should be set aside in the national interest because the statehood act of Alaska gave the right to the State of Alaska to select 103.5 million acres of public land, vacant, unreserved and unappropriated land. And the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act gave the Native people of Alaska the right to take 40 million acres of Alaska land, plus some additional lands that would add up to about 45 million acres. The Congress, at the time the Native Claims Settlement Act was passed, was worried that such selections might impede the national interest. And there was a review undertaken of what lands should be set aside in the national interest. We worked for several years to try and get the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed. In the Congress ending in 1978, we did achieve the passage in both the House and Senate of a bill to satisfy the requirements for the 1971 Act, that section 17(d)(2), as I mentioned. Unfortunately, at the last minute of that Congress, just prior to adjournment, my former colleague Senator Gravel objected to the approval of the conference committee on that bill and required the reading of the legislation which was an extremely long bill. We had already agreed to an adjournment resolution and, in effect, that killed the bill for that period of time. In 1979, when we returned, we started working again on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And by the time we finished it, the bill had been changed substantially from what it was in 1978. One thing did remain the same: The Arctic National Wildlife Range was changed from a range to a national wildlife refuge, and it was more than doubled in size. Of the original 9 million acres, that land was to be part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But a section authored by Senators Henry Jackson of Washington and Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts provided a compromise to meet the Alaska objection about the denial of the right to continue to explore the Arctic Plain. That is what we call section 1002 of the 1980 act. It provided for the right to proceed to explore that 1.5 million acres to determine if it had the potential for oil and gas and to have an environmental impact statement presented to the Congress and approved by the President and by the Secretary of Interior. That has happened. As a matter of fact, there has been more than one environmental impact statement. Presidents Reagan and Bush asked for the right to proceed for the exploration. That was denied by the Congress at that time. When President Clinton was in office, the Congress approved proceeding with the leasing of oil and gas on the 1.5 million acres, and President Clinton twice vetoed the bill. So where we are today is we are still trying to fulfill a commitment that was made to Alaska by two Democratic Senators in 1980 that we would have the opportunity to continue to explore for and develop the vast potential of the Arctic Plain. We have been trying since that time, of course, to obtain approval of it. The area we have now, the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, originally contained just 9 million up here in the corner. As I said, that was opened to oil and gas leasing. It included the coastal plain. It was part of the original Arctic wildlife range. What we are trying to do now is to once again fulfill the commitment made to us in section 1002 of the 1980 act that the analysis and exploratory activities may proceed. Unfortunately, this has become the icon of the radical environmental movement in the United States. People insist on coming to the floor and trying to tell the American people that this area was never intended to be explored. The commitment was made to us, and it was made to me personally, specifically, by Senator Paul Tsongas and Senator Henry Jackson that it would remain open. That was one of the reasons we did not object to the passage of the bill in 1980. The two of us who were here in 1978 were still here in 1980 when this bill passed. Senator Gravel and I agreed, because of the representations made to us by the two managers of the bill, that this land would remain open and could be explored. And if oil and gas was discovered, it could be produced from that area. It is probably the largest source of oil area in the United States. It is a sedimentary basin. It is the largest, probably, that we will ever see in the North American continent. Yet it goes unproduced because of the opposition of radical environmentalists who try to tell the American public something that is not true. This land has not been closed. It has never been closed to oil and gas exploration. But in order to proceed with the development in terms of production activity, it takes approval of an act of Congress signed by the President. We have been after that now for 21 years--even more if you go back to 1971. It is 30 years we have been telling the American public: This is probably the greatest place on the North American continent to produce oil to meet our needs. I, for one, hope we will have an opportunity to debate it and vote on the merits of this bill during this Congress. I congratulate my friend and colleague Senator Murkowski for all he is doing to bring it to the attention of the American people. When the time comes later on this afternoon, I will talk about some of the opportunities we have to meet our needs. Too many people consider oil solely as gasoline. Less than half of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline. As a matter of fact, the barrel of oil goes into everyday products. Fifty-six percent of a barrel of oil that comes out of the ground becomes other products besides gasoline: home fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, asphalt, kerosene, lubricants, maritime fuel, and other products. Everything from Frisbees to panty hose comes from oil. Yet people talk about how to have alternative supplies of energy. Where do you get the 56 plus percent of the barrel of oil that goes into products other than gasoline? You just can't get it. Look at this, items made from oil: toothpaste, footballs, ink, lifejackets, soft contacts, fertilizer, compact discs. As a matter of fact, there is no question that one of the most versatile products known to man is petroleum. A barrel of oil is a barrel of gold for our economy. We need to talk more about what it means to open up the Arctic wildlife area, the 1002 area, which was guaranteed to be made available to us for oil and gas development.

Mr. STEVENS. This entire 19 million acre area is the size of South Carolina. Of that, 1.5 million acres was set aside as the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration. Of that 1.5 million acres area, we need just 2,000 acres to reach the vast amounts of oil and gas.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his questions. What I think is important to do is to make sure the people understand that because of the decline in the through-put of that pipeline, the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline, we now are sending less than half of the amount it was designed to carry on an average day to the Lower 48. It was filled because of the discovery of the great Prudhoe Bay oilfield, and there was a second field discovered at Kuparuk. This area has produced, as I said, 13 billion barrels of oil so far. One of the sadnesses I have, as I have already indicated, is that we had a commitment. That 1980 act would not have become law if the Senators from Alaska had opposed it. The whole Congress knew that. It had almost become law in 1978 and my colleague objected, and we went back through the process. The process came to fruition at the end of 1980. The act passed before the election. President Carter did not sign this bill before the election. After the election but before leaving office, after President Reagan had been elected in the fall of 1980, President Carter signed it. In fact, he invited me to come to the White House at the time. President Carter signed that bill, and he and others now raise objection to the provisions of the law he signed into law. It is the feeling that one Congress cannot bind another, but the statement of a Senator representing a State and a party ought to be binding upon the Senate. We had exchange after exchange over the 1980 Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, and I thought those commitments were worth believing. I believed it when the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Tsongas, said he would stand by this concept of a promise that this area would be explored and developed if it proved to have oil and gas. I trusted my late and dear friend Senator Henry Scoop Jackson of Washington when he called us up to his office and said we have to listen to Senator Tsongas because he is making an offer that is real; it was real. Twenty years later, I am still in the Senate arguing for the Senate to observe the commitments that were made to our State and to the people of the United States. While I have this chart, I hope everyone will understand--the Senator from Hawaii asked about it--this is the State of Alaska, obviously. Alaska is one-fifth the land mass of the United States, 20 percent. It extends from one end of the Lower 48 to the other. It is almost as wide as the United States, and from Barrow down to Ketchikan it is like going from Duluth to New Orleans. This is an enormous area. People ask: Why don't they go out here to NPRA and develop leases? Because there is no transportation system. It takes a monstrous development of oil to support an 800-mile pipeline and run it a full 365 days a year. Currently, we are running half full. The wilderness area is the area colored in brown, the 1002 area on the Coastal Plain is in green. It was guaranteed to Alaska to be available for oil and gas exploration. With new technology, we propose to use just 2,000 acres. It is impossible to believe there is such a battle over that. I point out, in this we call the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain, set aside for oil and gas exploration, is a native village, the village of Kaktovik. Adjacent is the Sourdough Oil Field. And 100 miles west are the two largest deposits of oil and gas on the North American Continent today and they are both producing. Why do we do this? What is the national interest now? If ANWR is open, 735,000 jobs will be created throughout the United States to get parts, people, produce--everything that is necessary to develop an area and support its development that far away from what we call the contiguous 48 States. This is a forecast made and relied upon by the great labor unions of this country that I am proud to say are supporting our position that this area ought to be opened to oil and gas development. The Senator from Massachusetts said we should build a gas pipeline. Yes, we should. However, a gas pipeline is more affected by price than the oil pipeline. Gas in our country fluctuates in great variation. Just 18 months ago we saw rolling blackouts in California and record high natural gas prices. Now that is not going on because of a different price structure and infrastructure for delivering the resource and varying market conditions. What we do not have is another enormous areas in the United States to explore and develop with the same potential of the Arctic Plain. Despite everything I have said, I will oppose the cloture vote for this amendment. I believe the underlying bill, the Railroad Retirement Act, is essential to a great portion of the families of our working people who have retired. I deplore the fact we have to have a cloture vote to get this bill acted upon. Having our own bill up there will mean, because of the passage of time, now we have to the end of this Congress. When we first started this we thought we had time to get H.R. 4 considered and the Railroad Retirement Act passed, too. I don't see that happening now. I intend to vote against cloture, although our provision is in it, even though the ANWR provision is in H.R. 4. We ought to get down to the business that is very meaningful to a great number of families. There are some families in Alaska affected by railroad retirement issues, but only a few. The families of former railroad workers should be assured we are considerate of their needs and understand their position. I hope that bill will pass, go to conference, and be approved after a conference. I understand there are a couple of provisions to which the administration has objected. I hope they can be resolved. I don't think they affect the basic provision of the retirement system. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. It has not, and this will not either because we do not do oil and gas exploration in the summertime when they are there. We have committed to be certain there would be no interference with the caribou migration.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of the finest officers in our Armed Forces, Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr., the Director of the Air National Guard. Well known and respected by many Members in this chamber, General Weaver will soon retire after almost 35 years of selfless service to our country. Today, I am honored to acknowledge some of General Weaver's distinguished accomplishments and to commend the superb service he has provided to the Air National Guard, the Air Force, and our great Nation. After completing his Bachelor of Science degree in Communicative Arts at Ithaca College, New York, Paul Weaver entered the Air Force in 1967 and was commissioned through Officer Training School. After earning his pilot wings, he had flying assignments in the F-4E and O-2A, and completed overseas tours in Germany and Korea. In 1975, he joined the New York Air National Guard with which he served in increasing levels of responsibility. This culminated when he took command of the 105th Airlift Group at Stewart Air National Guard Base, New York, in 1985. Following his nine years as commander, General Weaver served as the Air National Guard's Deputy Director for four years and was appointed the Director of the Air Guard in 1998. General Weaver is a command pilot with more than 2,800 flying hours in five different aircraft. He is a veteran of Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Just Cause. General Weaver's decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Combat Readiness Medal with Service Star, and Southwest Asia Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters. While serving as Commander of the 105th Airlift Wing, Paul Weaver was responsible for the largest conversion in the history of the Air National Guard. Under his command, the wing converted from the Air Force's smallest aircraft, the O-2 Skymaster, to its largest, the C-5 Galaxy. During this conversion, he oversaw the largest military construction program in the history of the reserve forces as he literally rebuilt Stewart Air National Guard Base. As the Air National Guard's Director, General Weaver's accomplishments are also noteworthy. He had dedicated each year of his term to a different theme--transition, the enlisted force, the family, and employers, thereby providing focus and enhancements to these four crucial areas. In addition, Paul Weaver's modernization, readiness, people, and infrastructure initiatives have enabled a fuller partnership role in the Air Force's Expeditionary Aerospace Force. The Air Guard achieved all its domestic and global takings and requirements with a force that is also smaller in size. Under General Weaver's leadership, the Air National Guard is even more relevant, ready, responsive, and accessible than it has ever been. I would be remiss if I also did not mention that the Air National Guard is also fortunate to have another Weaver contributing to its success. Besides fully supporting his chosen profession, Paul's wife, Cathylee Weaver has had a major impact on the Air Guard's Family Enrichment programs. With dignity and grace, she dedicated time and attention to Air National Guard families, which led to her recently being voted as Volunteer of the Year of Family Programs. Clearly, the Air National Guard will lose not one, but two, exceptional people. Let me close by saying that as both its Deputy and Director, General Weaver has made the Air National Guard a stronger and more capable partner for the Air Force. His distinguished and faithful service has provided significant and lasting contributions to our Nation's security. I know the members of the Senate will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding citizen-airmen and true patriot upon his retirement from the Air National Guard. We thank General Weaver, and wish him, Cathylee, and the entire Weaver family much health, happiness, and Godspeed.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator. I regret that I did not sign the report. I did not have access to this report, nor to the bill. I still have to say to the chairman--I have great respect for him--in terms of the requirements for safety, that there are a great many places in the country, as the Senator from Arizona stated, where passengers who are not destined for a hub and are not destined for areas where the safety of passengers getting on and off is concerned, and baggage is immaterial, and if they are going from Nome to Alakanuk or to Shishmaref, or somewhere up in the village country in my State, I am afraid someone might interpret this as having them be required to pay for security which they don't get, and pay for or be subject to these requirements which they don't need. I have to tell you, I hope we can review this sometime in the future in a way to listen to some of these people who operate commuter airlines where they may intersect a hub. We have two or three hubs in Alaska defined on the Federal Register today. They may intersect a hub, but they do not go through the screening now. And I am not sure this bill requires them to go through screening they never had to go through before to go from place to place in Alaska.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator and appreciate the courtesy and apologize to the Senator from Texas. I have no objection to proceeding with the request.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, let me say this. I have had extreme difficulty in dealing with this bill because I have just read it for the first time this morning--and the report. I have extreme difficulty interpreting it as it applies to small planes that are carrying mail and passengers between two places in Alaska, where they will never intersect interstate commerce and where they will never interline with anyplace that has any difficulty as far as being a threat to people other than people in very small villages going from place to place-- from Bethel to St. Mary's, or from Bethel down to various places in the Yukon. I am going to have to go home and tell those people that they are affected by this bill. I tell my good friend that I can't tell from the way this bill is written whether some of the small villages--some of which do not have screening devices--that the small commuters fly between have to have screening devices. Are they to install screening devices?