Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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. 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 The land on that peninsula is almost entirely withdrawn.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 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. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, did the Senator indicate he thought this issue would carry over until tomorrow--this issue?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator's assessment that the 2 years of consecutive funding for this program totals $5.0 million is correct. It was the intent of the Conferees to provide this level of funding for the successful completion of this important program that will greatly enhance the security of the United States and the safety of our men and women at sea.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senior Senator from Illinois for her interest in this matter. I would like to confirm that the intent of our committee's action was as she stated.

Mr. STEVENS. I am delighted to respond to questions from the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct that the Senate included funding for this program at his request. The Committee and conferees were silent on the specific purpose of the program. I will add, though, that I support the intent of the Senator. Protecting Our Strategic Airlift

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first I would like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts and say that I am well aware of the critical role photonics is playing in our national security. I concur that the funding in question was intended to go to the Photonics Research Center that was funded in the FY 1996 DOD Appropriations Bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. He makes some very important and timely points. I, too, have been very supportive of the Navy Theater Wide program and will work closely with him to ensure that the entire system, including the radar, is developed on schedule. I fully support the conference's decision to provide $28 million for Radar Improvements Competition in Fiscal Year 1999 and I encourage the Navy to factor the radar development into their overall plan for Navy Theater Wide development and fielding.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator yield back the balance of his time?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. My colleague from Alaska is correct. The Committee believes that it is important for Congress to be fully and currently informed on the military balance in the tense Taiwan Strait, as Congress directed in the Taiwan Relations Act. The Committee expects the report to detail recent additions to the offensive military capabilities of the People's Republic of China, as well as new challenges to the deterrent forces of the Republic of China on Taiwan. This report should carefully examine the balance as it exists today, as it may exist in the future, given expected procurement programs, as well as comparing the balance with the situation that existed in 1979, when Congress adopted the Taiwan Relations Act.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join Senator Inouye in commending our staff and all those who worked on this bill, and particularly Senator Roberts, for his very significant amendment to this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas wants 2 minutes. Please inform when I have used 3 minutes. It is my privilege to present to the Senate this fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I am especially pleased to present the bill with the full bipartisan support of the conferees on the bill and in partnership with my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. Unlike the previous 3 years, the bill before the Senate matches the budget request levels sought by the President for 1999. Pursuant to the bipartisan budget agreement reached last year, we live within the budget authority and outlay limits on defense spending. It is my judgment, though, that the levels set last year do not adequately fund readiness, quality of life, modernization, and the needs of our Armed Forces. I will be speaking more on that today. The conference report before the Senate places a clear premium on meeting the personnel and readiness needs of the military. The bill provides the 3.6-percent pay increase for all uniformed personnel. The bill also increases funding for urgent operation and maintenance requirements for the military services. The conferees on the bill also worked to address the top modernization priorities established by the service chiefs. The conferees did not solve funding challenges presented by the budget caps by taking large general reductions to procurement and research accounts. Tough decisions were made on each program. Very few programs, Mr. President, were funded at the full House or Senate level. Where there was a difference, we sought to find a compromise between the House and Senate spending accounts. One very important provision of the bill was offered in the Senate by Senator Roberts. That is on the prospect of deploying U.S. troops to Kosovo. Following consultations with Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs Chairman General Shelton, the conferees modified the provision to focus attention on any additional deployment of U.S. troops to Yugoslavia--which does include Kosovo--Albania and Macedonia. This reporting requirement, related to the introduction of ground troop units, does not apply forces introduced in accordance with U.N. Security Council 795 or other circumstances determined by the President to be an emergency necessitating the immediate deployment of forces. In addition, the conferees added language making clear nothing in this section shall be deemed to restrict the authority of the President under the Constitution to protect the lives of U.S. citizens. I again commend Senator Roberts for this initiative and believe the modifications included in the bill are consistent with past requirements enacted concerning the deployment of U.S. forces in this region. It will be very important in connection with any potential deployment to Kosovo. As I noted earlier, there is not enough money for defense in this bill, Mr. President. We recently received a letter from the President identifying the need for additional funds for 1999. The Armed Services Committee today is hearing testimony on this issue from the service chiefs. It is my intention to recommend to the Senate that additional funds be provided in the emergency supplemental bill for readiness, counterterrorism, the war on drugs, and intelligence needs. Our committee will work with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs to ensure we meet the needs they present to Congress. Mr. President, let me close by recognizing the excellent work undertaken by our colleagues in the House, Chairman Bill Young and Representative Jack Murtha. The four of us have been handling these defense bills for several years now, and it is truly a pleasure to work with them each year on this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is this a 10 minute vote?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill. It is my understanding that the time for making remarks will follow the vote on the bill. So there will occur a vote on this bill immediately. Following that vote, the Senate will hear remarks concerning the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and, following that, any legislative or executive items cleared for action, including the Internet tax bill if an agreement can be reached today. As a reminder to all Members, a cloture motion was filed yesterday on the so-called vacancies bill. Therefore, Members have until 1 p.m. today to file first-degree amendments. The cloture vote has been scheduled to occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 28. I thank the Senate and call for the regular order.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the Wendell Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act, as Chairman McCain just pointed out. I see my good friend from Kentucky is here. I think that this is an act that should be named after the Senator from Kentucky because of his long service on the Commerce Committee and particularly on the Aviation Subcommittee. Our Nation has come through a very interesting period during the time that Wendell Ford has been Senator from Kentucky--a total revolution in aviation and a concentration on safety and improvement of our airway system. Wendell Ford has been a leader in that effort. This bill signifies the totality of what he has done for the aviation community. I come to the floor today, because, as I believe most Members of the Senate know, Alaska is completely dependent upon air transportation. Over 70 percent of our communities can only be reached by air year- round. We believe in the safety of that system. I have been pleased to have the honor to be able to work with the Senator from Kentucky on a whole series of matters dealing with operations, with safety, and with the maintenance of the airways system, and in particularly with the development of air transportation facilities on the ground. As you go throughout this country and go to these major new terminals, you should think of Wendell Ford, because he has led us, through the period when he was chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and during the period when he has been ranking member of that subcommittee, to an understanding of what is necessary to keep the lead that we have as a nation in aviation. I come to the floor to thank my good friend for all he as done for us and for the Nation, but particularly to thank him on behalf of all of us in Alaska who rely so much on this system that he has improved and made more safe. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Manager, the Senator from Arizona, Chairman McCain, for his able and fair management of the FAA Reauthorization bill. Subsection 702(b) exempts overflights in Alaska from the provisions of the new section 40125 of title 40 set forth in the subsection 702(a). Is that the Committee's intent?

Mr. STEVENS. The last time Congress enacted legislation on the overflights matter was in the 100th Congress under Public Law 100-91 (101 Stat. 674 et seq.). Prior to enactment, this legislation was reviewed by both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation. As a Commerce Committee member then and now, I would like to discuss P.L. 1001-91. Under P.L. 100-91, Congress mandated a study by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to determine the impacts that overflights of aircraft have on park unit resources. Section 1(c) expressly excluded all National Park System units in Alaska from the research and the study. In a hearing held during the 105th Congress on S. 268, the park overflights bill that ultimately became Title VII of S. 2279, the National Park Service testified that Alaska parks were not a part of the study commissioned in 1987 and completed in 1995. Therefore, that study mandated by Congress did not provide a basis for applying S. 2279's park overflights provisions to Alaska.