Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Alaska's Senators, legislation to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to set the bowhead whale quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission in the event the International Whaling Commission does not set an Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling quota for the bowhead whale.

Madam Speaker, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is at a crossroads. Many observers of the IWC have raised concerns that the Commission will either fall apart in the next few years or it will turn into a whale protection organization that will allow no take of whales--even for subsistence purposes. In either case, without an alternative mechanism for authorizing the Alaska subsistence harvest of bowhead whales, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission could find itself with no quota authorized by the IWC. In the event that this were to occur and the Alaskan hunters tried to fulfill the communities needs for whale meat, they could find themselves in violation of the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 for attempting to feed their people.

And even if the IWC remains a viable management entity, the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling quotas have been rejected by the IWC several times in recent memory due to political fights between the whaling nations and those nations that are opposed to any whaling. These fights have used the Alaskan Natives as political footballs and left the Native people of Alaska without a quota of whales. This happened most recently in 2002 when the IWC rejected the Alaskan quota for no other reason than politics. And at this year's IWC meeting, the Greenland Natives submitted a request to substitute humpback whales for the current quota of fin whales--something the IWC's Scientific Committee had already considered and determined that the harvest of 10 humpback whales would not endanger the stock. Despite the Scientific Committee's determination, the IWC did not have enough votes to allow this quota. In both of these cases, the IWC did not act on Native quotas despite recommendations or determinations by the Scientific Committee that the quota was sustainable and would not endanger the stocks. In both cases, the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling quotas were rejected because of politics and not science.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that in the fight to outlaw scientific whaling and commercial whaling, many IWC member countries are being pressured by animal rights groups to stop all whaling. These animal rights groups do not understand the subsistence needs of Native people--or they don't care.

Alaskan Native whalers have already been held hostage during these fights over scientific and commercial whaling and that is not right.

Today, the Alaska delegation is introducing legislation to regulate domestic Native subsistence whaling under domestic law in the event that the IWC cannot authorize a quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's bowhead whale harvest.

The legislation will allow the Secretary of Commerce to set the annual quota for the bowhead harvest in the event that the IWC is unable to set the quota. Under the legislation, the Secretary must set the quota based on science and the needs of the Alaska Natives.

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's harvest has always been sustainable, based on science, based on harvest levels approved by the IWC's Scientific Committee, and set at a level that has allowed the bowhead whale population to increase to the point where some scientists are now calling for the downlisting of the stock.

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has continually had to justify their harvest--both their cultural need and their nutritional need. They have done this and have also responded to every hurdle that anti- whaling nations have put in their way. In addition, they probably have provided more scientific information to the IWC on the bowhead whale than the IWC has on any other whale species. All of this was done to justify a harvest that has gone on for centuries.

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has continued to respect the IWC, continued

to respect the scientific recommendations of the Secretary of Commerce and the IWC's Scientific Committee, and continued to respect the bowhead whale. But they cannot be used as political footballs by the IWC and they cannot have their need for the bowhead whale delayed if the IWC fails to renew their quota in a timely manner.

This legislation will ensure that the AEWC will have their cultural and nutritional needs met in the event that the IWC fails to act to renew their quota or if the IWC decided to hold their quota hostage for political reasons, but does so in a manner that is based on science and the needs of the Alaskan Native people as determined by the Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, today is yet another sad day for the American people--real people who are suffering from $4-plus pain at the pump and the Democrat Majority's refusal to do anything about it.

This bill is nothing more than a feeble attempt to fool the American people into believing that the Democratic leadership in Congress actually supports more drilling. They don't. The Democrats in Congress have a well documented, 30 year history of opposing more drilling. In fact, just last year, the very same Democrat leaders in this body who now say they support more drilling were arguing that oil companies were drilling too much and too quickly.

And let me remind Members that in the first 100 hours of the Democrat's Majority's ``new direction'' for American energy, they attempted to limit and slow down energy production in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) by undoing the provisions Republicans enacted into law in 2005 that would have expedited more drilling in

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to assist a remarkable nonprofit humanitarian organization known as Helping Hands.

This organization, which was first established in 1979, has placed 131 specially trained capuchin monkeys in the homes of severely disabled Americans throughout the country at absolutely no cost to the recipient.

While Helping Hands initially received some financial assistance from the National Science Foundation, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the U.S. Veterans Administration, it has been operating solely on its own since its final government grant in 1994. The purpose of this legislation is not to authorize any government funding for this organization. In fact, it is simply designed to correct what I am sure is an unintended consequence of a bill, H.R. 2964, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act that passed the House of Representatives on June 17, 2008.

The measure I am introducing today is a solution to the problem created by H.R. 2964 which would prohibit the transportation of nonhuman primates across State lines. Since this legislation is pending action in the other body, I have incorporated the text of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, as passed by the House, in this measure with the modification of allowing the Helping Hands organization to continue to place their service monkeys in the homes of disabled Americans throughout this country. It is a narrowly tailored change that only exempts a nonprofit organization that provides service monkeys to recipients with severe mobility impairment.

Madam Speaker, until my office was recently contacted by a representative of Helping Hands, I was not aware of its existence. I was also not aware that capuchin monkeys were being specifically trained at the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation Center in Boston to help disabled individuals with simple everyday tasks. This training lasts between 18 to 24 months and costs about $10,000 per monkey. It is a remarkable program.

Upon graduation, these trained service monkeys are transported by car and plane from Boston to disabled recipients throughout the United States. The recipients must hold a valid state permit for the nonhuman primate and Helping Hands retains ownership of the service monkey at all times.

For nearly 30 years, this humanitarian organization has provided invaluable assistance to Americans with polio, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, military veterans who sustained severe injuries in Vietnam and Iraq and people who are paralyzed or live with other severe mobility impairments. The service monkeys perform a variety of tasks including retrieving dropped items, turning on the television or loading a compact disc, putting straws in drinking bottles and pushing buttons on personal computers. Just as importantly, these service monkeys provide the disabled recipients with a sense of independence, companionship and a renewed enthusiasm for life.

Madam Speaker, my bill will make a small simple modification to the Lacey Act to ensure that Helping Hands will be able to continue to transport its service monkeys to worthy recipients in all 50 States and U.S. territories in the future. I am confident that the authors of H.R. 2964 never intended to adversely affect this humanitarian group nor did they realize it would effectively kill this nationwide effort to assist Americans like the marine who was severely injured by a roadside explosion in Iraq. As a result of this attack, the marine sustained a severe brain injury, lost both legs and one of his eyes. Today, he is living in southern California and he has become a recent recipient of a Helping Hand service monkey.

Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of the Captive Primate Safety and Disabled Human Assistance Act. It is a humanitarian solution to what would be, if uncorrected, a serious problem. It is also right that we allow our disabled military veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country the opportunity to participate in the Helping Hands Program. I want to also acknowledge that the Army Veterinary Corps has already endorsed its enactment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an issue. And the frustration on this side--and it should be on that side--is on the lack of an energy policy that only Congress can solve.

I know there's a lot of talk. The Speaker just sent a letter to the President to use the SPR, as if that's going to solve the problem. That's not going to solve the problem. In fact, it will make the problem worse. We have to address the supply side of this issue, and we're not doing it.

The last time we produced any new energy on this floor was 1973 when we had an embargo and we had no fuel, so we passed the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. In 1976, we produced the first barrel of oil to America from Alaska. In 3 years, we built an 800-mile-long pipeline 48 inches around. We built the terminus point in Valdez, and I wear that today on my tie. We drilled the wells and we built the collection lines to deliver that oil. And we got as high as 2.2 million barrels a day to the United States of America because we were under the threat at that time, the same threat we are today, of control by overseas forces, not forces of military fact, but in fact those that control our supply. At that time, we were importing 39 percent of our oil from overseas. Today, it's 70 percent. And we have done nothing in this Congress to relieve that problem.

Your constituents are paying for it today. There is no shortage of fuel. There is a high cost of fuel because we don't have the domestic capability of providing it. We need to have this debate on the floor. Let us stand up and be counted on both sides of the aisle who is for domestic production.

There is no shortage of fossil fuel in the United States of America. We have an abundance of it. We've had the lack of will to produce it. It was easier to buy it abroad. We just had a sale in Alaska, other than ANWR, in Chukchi Sea about $2.6 billion from an oil company to try to develop it because there is a lot of argument on that side, well, they're not drilling the acreage they have now. You know why they're not drilling? Because your friends and your allies are filing suits not allowing them to drill, suits that say, oh, there's going to be polar bears affected or there's going to be some little other type of animal affected. In the meantime, your constituents are paying that $4.62 a gallon. Yes, the oil did drop yesterday, but it will go up tomorrow and the next day because we are not supplying the oil to our people through the domestic source.

We have the shale that was mentioned in Utah and Wyoming and all the other areas, Colorado; huge amounts of oil. We have more coal in the United States than there is all around the world and we're not developing it. We have not had the will to develop it because this Congress sits by and talks about saving records of the past administration. Your bill may not do that, but this is what this is all about. And I'm saying that doesn't produce any gas. That doesn't help the truck driver. It costs $2,000 to fill up one Peterbilt truck that delivers your food to your grocery store. Wait until that price starts hitting the prices in the grocery store, and it already has. The harvester who harvests the grain today now is paying sometimes as high as $4 and $5 for diesel fuel to run it. That's going to affect you, too.

We have not acted on this floor. And the responsible way of addressing the issue--now, some people will say we'll have the other forms of energy, wind and hippy-hoppies and that type of thing to solve the problem. But the reality is fossil fuels drive objects. It's the trucks, the planes, the trains, and the automobiles that deliver to your homes and your hospitals and your schools, and we must have that.

Yes, we can go into nuclear. Yes, we can go into wind. Yes, we can go into solar. And we can go to geothermal and hydro. We can do all those things and we should. My bill, H.R. 6107, to open ANWR--this, by the way, 12 times it passed this House floor. We won't have a vote on it this year, but we should have a vote. The one time we got it out of the Senate and Bill Clinton vetoed it.

Bill Clinton vetoed it because he said it will take 10 years to produce it; ANWR, 10 years. That was 13 years ago. If we had built it then, we would have it pumping today over 1 million barrels a day, but no, he didn't do that.

Let me stress again, ANWR is, in fact, 74 miles away from the existing pipeline, 800 miles long, a terminus point and all the infrastructure in place, and we built that in 3 years. And if you don't think we can build a pipeline 74 miles away and drill the oil and

get it to that pipeline in 3 years, you're not studying this fact. It can be done for the American people.

I'm asking you on both sides, let's drill, let's develop our domestic sources for the good of America, the good of the Nation, and make sure we can go forth.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a great American and outstanding Alaskan on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Born on June 26,

1928, in Spokane Washington, the Honorable Bill Sheffield has been a leader in business, government, and public policy for many of the 55 years he has resided in Alaska. He served as governor from 1982 to 1986 following an impressive and prosperous business career in which he built a company that became one of the largest private employers in Alaska and the Yukon Territory.

Following a landslide victory in his 1982 election, Governor Sheffield focused his attention to curbing the runaway growth in state government, bettering the lives of rural Alaskans, and saving more of Alaska's energy revenues for future generations of Alaskans. As Governor he supported opening ANWR, a position I proudly share with him and one which we will continue to support until development begins.

Since leaving public office in 1986, Governor Sheffield hasn't slowed down at all! He is a trustee of Alaska Pacific University; a member of the Advisory Board of ENSTAR Natural Gas; a charter member of Commonwealth North, Alaska's leading public affairs forum; Past Chairman of the Federal Salary Council; former Alaska Chairman of the United Nations 50th year celebration; received the 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award in Business from Alaska Business Monthly; former President & CEO of the Alaska Railroad Corporation and now serves on its Board of Directors.

In addition to these many commitments, Governor Sheffield also serves as the Director of the Port of Anchorage. As Director, Sheffield has implemented a massive expansion that started in 2002 and will be completed in 2014. Governor Sheffield's vision for the much needed expansion of the State of Alaska's largest port will serve nearly the entire geographic area and population of our State as goods and materials are brought into Alaska. In addition, the Port will serve National Defense Objectives by providing vital, modernized transportation support and access to four major military installations and personnel in Alaska, including the Stryker Brigade at Ft. Wainwright. Furthermore, the expanded port will play a major role in the ongoing efforts to bring even more of Alaska's vast and much needed energy resources to the rest of the Nation. I am proud to support Governor Sheffield, the expansion of the Port and the fantastic job he is doing for Alaska and the Nation. His tireless energy and enthusiasm continues to amaze me!

As a candidate for Governor in 1982, Bill's theme was ``Bringing the State Together.'' I learned from him that when we all work together we can achieve great things and I hope that others continue to follow in his path of bipartisanship. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, against the backdrop of today's partisan fighting, I have always tried to reach out to the other side, to reach out to Democrats who are dedicated to getting things done. Governor Sheffield, a lifelong Democrat, is one of the best examples I know of someone who is willing to work with anyone, regardless of political affiliation, who is also devoted to achieving important goals for the greater good.

I like to remember great leaders by what they were able to accomplish while they served others. The legacy that Bill will leave behind someday is the vision he has had for the future of Alaska. I share his vision in investing now to prepare for the future. Sometimes this goes against the grain of popular opinion but a great leader is unafraid of rocking the boat of populism. I celebrate Bill's willingness to do this and wish more public servants were willing to stand up for what is right and not just popular.

I would be remiss were I not to mention that while Bill works hard, he also knows how to enjoy all that life has to offer. He is an excellent duck hunter, fisherman, golfer and an avid outdoorsman and his friends and family mean the world to him. He and I have shared countless hours together over the years and I truly value his unwavering friendship. Madam Speaker, I am honored to call Bill Sheffield my friend and I hope the entire Congress will join me and my wife Lu in wishing him well on this wonderful occasion. Happy birthday Bill! God bless you.

Madam Speaker, on June 25, 2008, the Committee on Natural Resources adopted a resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to make an emergency withdrawal of more than one million acres of land in Arizona from the operation of the mining laws, jeopardizing significant reserves of critical high-grade sources of uranium for clean-burning nuclear power plants. The Committee passed this resolution without a quorum present in violation of House and Committee rules, as documented by the 20-2 roll call vote on the motion to adopt. In addition, the Republicans had vacated the markup in protest of what is an unconstitutional measure, and so this vote reflects only those of Democratic members. The resolution therefore clearly does not reflect the views of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The majority marked up the resolution even though the use of this authority under section 204(e) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act is clearly unconstitutional. This view is supported by an informal opinion of the Justice Department issued in 1983 as well as a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service. I reproduce the Justice Memorandum below and have appended the conclusion of the CRS American Law Division.

There is no emergency. If there was, the Secretary of the Interior would use his own power to make an emergency withdrawal. The reality is that the majority could not pass actual legislation locking up these millions of acres of public lands from resource development--in an area where there are already many mining claims.

This resolution is a toothless act of political theater. I hope that Interior Secretary Kempthorne gives it all the deference it deserves-- none.

Subject: Legislative Veto Provision Contained in Sec. 204(e)

of FLPMA.

Date: September 12, 1983.

From: Name: Ralph W. Tarr, Office Symbol: OLC.

Statement: This memorandum memorializes the oral advice I

recently conveyed to the Solicitor's Office of the Interior

Department concerning conclusions we reached as to the

legislative veto provision contained in Sec. 204(e) of the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43

U.S.C. Sec. 1714(e). That section provides in pertinent part

that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of either

House of Congress (subsequently designated as the Committee

on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate) may notify the

Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') that an emergency

situation exists and direct the Secretary to withdraw certain

public lands from disposition under laws pertaining to

mineral leasing.

Previous litigation under this provision followed a

Resolution of May 21, 1981, by the House Committee, directed

to the Secretary, for the withdrawal of certain lands in the

Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas.

This Office determined, and the Department subsequently took

the position in that litigation, that Sec. 204(e) was

unconstitutional insofar as it authorized a Committee of

either House to direct the Secretary to take an action which

would change the status of public lands. It was our view that

the provision, as legislative action, violated the

Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses, Art. I, Sec. 1, and

Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2 and 3, and, as executive action,

violated principles of separation of powers and the

Incompatibility Clause, Art. I, Sec. 6. See generally

Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendants' Cross-Motion to

Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and in Response to

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary

Judgment in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Watt, Civil No. 81-

141BLG, and Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Watt, Civil

No. 81-168-BLG (D. Mont.)

The Department's Memorandum submitted to the court at that

time also concluded that the portion of Sec. 204( e), which

provided for the committee veto was severable from the

Secretary's leasing authority, which is contained in entirely

different and earlier statutes, and from the Secretary's

authority under Sec. 204(e) to withdraw lands on his own

initiative. Section 707 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 note,

provides that if any provision or its application of the Act

is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and its application

shall not be affected. See, e.g., Champlin Refining Co. v.

Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210 (1932),

quoted with approval in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108-109

(1976).

In the court decision which resulted, the district court

upheld Sec. 204(e) against the separation of powers

challenge, on the ground

that the scope and duration of a withdrawal order under

Sec. 204(e) were within the Secretary's discretion, subject

to judicial review. The court did not view Sec. 204(e) as a

veto provision and thus did not address the bicameralism and

presentment issues. The court added, however, that if the

section were interpreted to permit a congressional committee,

by majority vote, to direct the Secretary to withdraw

wilderness areas until the date specified in the Resolution,

the committee action would be, in effect, an attempt to amend

the Wilderness Act of 1964, and would be unconstitutional

under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d

408 (9th Cir. 1980). See Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) v.

Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982 (D. Mont. 1982), on reconsideration,

539 F. Supp. 1194 (D. Mont. 1982) (final order of Aug. 31,

1982, unpublished).

The constitutionality of the legislative veto device has

since been firmly and finally decided. INS v. Chadha, 51

U.S.L.W. 4907 (June 23, 1983); Consumer Energy Council v.

FERC, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'd, 51 U.S.L.W. 3935

(June 29, 1983), Consumers Union v. FTC, 691 F.2d 575 (D.C.

Cir. 1982), aff'd, 51 U.S.L.W. 3935 (June 29, 1983). There

remains no doubt that the power to direct withdrawal of lands

granted to a single Congressional Committee by Sec. 204(e)

is, by its terms, a legislative veto and is unconstitutional

under Chadha.

At the request of Interior, this Office examined

Sec. 204(e) and the relevant case law in conjunction with a

Resolution of August 3, 1983, by the House Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs, which purported to direct the

Secretary to withdraw lands in the Fort Union Coal Region of

Montana and North Dakota. We determined and advised Interior

that the Resolution passed pursuant to Sec. 204(e) purporting

to direct withdrawal was unconstitutional as a legislative

veto and was not salvageable under the construction of the

court in PLF v. Watt. We further determined and advised that

constitutional failure of the veto provision has no effect on

the substantive authority granted to the Secretary of

Interior by the statutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just witnessed one of the greatest displays of inaccuracies I have ever heard in my life.

It's too bad that the public doesn't understand that this whole bill is a charade, and I am disappointed in my chairman because there were no hearings on this. In fact, the testimony that I have heard from the majority is the reality is not real. The report is not real. And where he gets the figures about 68 million acres set aside and not utilized, I don't know. And where do they get the idea of getting 4 billion barrels?

I've just listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts' tirade. I have heard that same tirade for as long as he's been in Congress. He has never supported any energy at all, any development of energy, including nuclear. Now his people in Massachusetts are paying that price.

When I first came to Congress, we were in the minority, and the price of oil for a barrel was $8 a barrel, 39 cents at the pump. Yes, it's high today because the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was the last big development we ever had because this Congress would not allow us to develop any other oil fields. Now, we have a big oil field in Alaska called ANWR, which is 74 miles away from the existing pipeline that delivers 17 billion barrels to the American people, and we're not allowed to drill it because this Congress won't act.

And we have a tirade on this floor about blaming Big Oil. There's only one group that's to blame, and it's this Congress, both sides of the aisle, because it's easier to buy it from OPEC countries. And we stopped trying to figure out how we can get off the dependency. We have not done that.

Now, if we don't drill, we are going to be in trouble. I predict the price of oil, if we don't drill and start supply to this demand in the United States, the price of oil will probably go to $150 a barrel. And that's going to be under your watch.

Are you proud of what you've done? I say no. This bill is a charade. It should be voted down, and we should vote ``no, no, no, drill, drill, drill.''

Madam Speaker, I think it would be instructive for Members to see this letter from the national organizations representing the oil producers, oil and gas supply industries and the off shore oil and gas infrastructure supply industry; the organizations that supply domestic energy for the American consumer.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We write today in opposition of HR

6251, the so-called ``use it or lose it'' legislation under

consideration in the House today. As Americans cope with $4 a

gallon gasoline, it is regrettable that some in Congress

choose to propose diversionary legislation, not based on

facts, instead of focusing on the real issue--the need for

additional energy supplies to meet growing world energy

demand.

Over the past few weeks, rhetoric surrounding our nation's

lack of a coherent energy policy has reached an apex.

Unfortunately, policy proposals like the ``use it or lose

it'' legislation ignore fundamental facts about the oil and

gas industry and jeopardize the long-term energy security of

our nation.

Every energy forecast has predicted that oil and natural

gas will be a critical component of America's growing energy

demands. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA)

estimates 88% of our nation's energy needs will be met by

oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power in the year 2030.

This fact is being lost in the proposals of some members of

Congress. While political candidates talk of energy

independence, some in Congress are offering proposals that

will lead our nation in the opposite direction. These members

ignore the challenges of domestic production, and make

unfounded accusations such as the latest charge that non-

producing leases are the same as inactive leases. This

couldn't be further from the truth.

The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is in the business of

supplying energy, not sitting on it. The industry has

reliably supplied our nation with the necessary energy to

move our cars and fuel our homes and will continue to do so

for decades to come. The industry buys leases with the intent

to produce all commercially viable reserves of oil and

natural gas. Unfortunately, not every acre of land under

lease contains oil or natural gas. In fact, many leases do

not contain any commercially recoverable oil or natural gas

resources.

But these non-commercial leases continue to provide rental

payments for the federal government, on top of bonus bids

paid for the right to explore this land. In fact, the federal

government received more than $9 billion in bonus bids from

the last four offshore lease sales alone.

For the acreage that does include promising reserve

prospects, it can take years and millions, or even billions,

of dollars to develop this resource. The exploration process,

which precedes production, necessarily takes time. Seismic

surveys must be undertaken, delineation wells must be

drilled, government permits must be obtained, environmental

regulations must be adhered to, and complex production

facilities must be engineered and installed.

Oil and gas development is an extensive, expensive and

time-consuming process, even with advances in technology. As

an example, in the U.S. ultra deepwater (greater than 5000

ft) in the Gulf of Mexico--where some of our nation's most

promising new discoveries have been made--only 21% of wells

drilled have resulted in a discovery of oil or natural gas.

However, as a result of this industry's willingness to invest

billions of dollars despite these odds--and because of what

has historically been a stable domestic oil and natural gas

regulatory regime--the U.S. oil and gas industry has

continued to explore the Gulf of Mexico. This exploration has

resulted in an 820% increase in deepwater oil production and

a roughly 1,155% increase in deepwater natural gas production

from 1992 to 2006, while adding billions of dollars in

revenue to the federal treasury.

In fact, royalty payments provide the second-largest

revenue stream to the federal government, behind only federal

taxes administered by the IRS.

The ability to explore in Gulf Coast waters has resulted in

not only a steady stream of major discoveries since the mid

1990s, but also a tripling of estimated undiscovered

potential from 1995 to 2003. Similarly, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska

was initially thought to contain 9 billion barrels of oil,

but the industry has already produced about 12 billion

barrels and it still is estimated to contain reserves of

another 6 billion barrels. Imagine what American industrial

ingenuity could find through environmentally responsible

exploration and development of 85% of Lower 48 Outer

Continental Shelf and 83% of onshore federal lands that are

currently off-limits or facing significant restrictions to

development.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Mineral Leasing

Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands already

establish a regulatory system that sets time limits on lease

terms, establishes annual rental payments for leases that are

not yet in production, and requires diligent development of

all available resources. The current debate does not

acknowledge these facts. The American public deserves a

policy discussion grounded in market fundamentals.

Sincerely,

American Petroleum Institute.

American Exploration and Production Council.

International Association of Drilling Contractors.

Independent Petroleum Association of America.

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States.

National Ocean Industries Association.

U.S. Oil and Gas Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Rahall has summarized the settlement history of the Bay Mills land claim as well as the related and

commingled claim of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. Therefore, I will limit my remarks to why I believe this amended bill, which is championed by my good friends from Michigan, Chairman John Dingell, Chairman Bart Stupak, and Candice Miller, deserves the support of the Members of this House.

Before the House today are two bills combined to resolve a problem affecting two tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a number of non-Indian landowners in an area of Michigan known as Charlotte Beach.

Let me point out the support for this bill in the districts that are affected by them. The Members representing Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribes support the bill. The two Members representing districts where lands will be placed in trust support the bill.

Finally--and this is very important--this settlement deal was negotiated by former Governor John Engler and is supported by Governor Granholm.

It has been my practice--and I hope most of you understand--to defer to the Members whose districts are affected by legislation because that Member best represents the views of his constituents and knows his district best. Of course, I can only wish that others would respect this practice when it comes to Alaska. If so, we would be enjoying 42 million gallons of oil a day from ANWR. Instead, we have Members whose districts are thousands of miles away and who are encasing this key to American oil independence and lower gas prices in crystal by declaring it a wilderness. That is something that even President Jimmy Carter, in his cardigan sweaters, refused to do during the height of our gas crisis.

Getting back to H.R. 2176, this bill settles two Indian land claims without costing any Federal or State dollars and without imposing taxes or fees on anyone. In fact, under the settlement deals, the tribes are going to share revenues with the State of Michigan and with local communities.

The bills are consistent with the compact agreed to by the tribes and by the Governors pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

In this Congress, we have passed bills that recognize some tribes on the condition that such tribes forego gaming. We made this condition a part of their recognition of the bills. This breaks with long-standing precedent and with treating Indian tribes on an equal footing with one another. But we did it out of deference to the Members who represent the tribes, out of deference to the Governors of the States affected, and out of deference to the wishes of local communities.

If we want to remain consistent in this policy, then we should agree to the request of the Members and of the Governors and of the local communities of Port Huron and Romulus.

I understand there is opposition to this bill. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I probably shouldn't say, but this bill should never have gone to Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, it should never have gone to Judiciary. This is not your jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction of Natural Resources only, and for some reason, somebody tried to placate somebody and send it over to Judiciary. Judiciary has no jurisdiction over this bill. IGRA is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee.

I understand the opposition. On the one hand, we must defer to Governors and to Members who don't want gaming, but on the other hand, we are hearing we must not defer to Governors and to Members when they want to permit and to regulate gaming. This is confusing.

Most of the opponents of these bills don't live in the area affected by the legislation. I note that none of the amendments filed to this bill were from the Michigan delegation.

So why are they opposed? I believe it is fear of competition. The tribes whose lands are settled by H.R. 2176, as amended, have every right under the law to provide economically to their members. That they choose to do so by operating casinos is their choice, as well as that of the Governor of Michigan. These enterprises will supply jobs to the area, will provide funds for health care, and will provide better education for Native Americans, and they will do so by engaging the oldest American economic policies--good old-fashioned, competitive capitalism.

This is not the first time that Congress has taken lands into trust for tribes outside traditional reservation boundaries and has allowed the tribes the full economic benefit of these lands. As one example, I point to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act from the 106th Congress. That law directed the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for two tribes--the Lytton Rancheria and the Graton Rancheria--which may not have been part of the tribes' historical ranges. In each case, just like the bill being considered today, gaming was not barred. Certainly, this is a common result whenever Congress or the administration recognizes a landless tribe or restores land to a tribe.

In the meantime, the property owners in Charlotte Beach have watched the value of their property plummet, something like 90 percent in some cases. The cloud on the title to their land, resulting from the land claims, has made it nearly impossible for them to sell or to secure a mortgage. This isn't right, and it isn't right to leave them hanging when the Governors of Michigan, the legislature, the affected communities, and their Representatives want to move these settlements forward.

This bill will end this ordeal that they're all facing.

Once again, I do urge support of H.R. 2176, as amended, and urge passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to this debate. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is about competition. That's all it is. Let's face it. It's competition.

I'm a little disturbed that the casinos in Detroit that are owned by Indian tribes now are objecting to their brethren, because it's about competition.

We have been over this time and time again. This is not a new bill. This is an attempt to settle a land claim by those who own land and who no longer have title of it because of a court ruling. This is not just about casinos.

And by the way, to the chairman of the Judiciary, I did mention ``casinos'' in my statement. It's there, I want you people to understand, and I did mention ``gaming,'' but I did say ``casinos,'' too. I'm not trying to hide anything. This is their prerogative under IGRA to have the title to this land.

This land was not voluntarily given away. This land was taken. The State of Michigan said it was taken. The courts have said it was taken. These tribes have a legal title to this land. And, until they get that land, the people who now have homes, who have stores that have been inherited from their parents, that title is not theirs.

But we have those in Detroit and those interests from outside of Michigan that don't want any more competition. Competition, apparently, is bad for the American way. I think it's good.

Again, let's go back to those people who represent the area. And the Governor and the community all support this bill.

I reserve my time.

Point of Order

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman 15 seconds, too.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 8 minutes to the good lady of the district that's represented, not from California, not from any other area such as Nevada and California, again, that oppose this legislation. She represents this area, and we ought to listen to her as to why she is for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

How much time is left totally, Mr. Speaker? How much time does the Judiciary have, the majority and minority?

Parliamentary inquiry.

Who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman, not for closing, but I will yield him 2 minutes of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, I hope everybody recognizes again that what this is about is competition. That's all it is. In the meantime, there are two Native tribes, American Indians, that have a right under IGRA to, in fact, have these lands that they negotiated with the Governors, the State legislature, the communities, and reached a deal; yet this is the last body that has the ability and the responsibility of settling disputes on lands owned by or not owned by American Natives. Not the courts, no one else. And that's why we are here today.

It does disturb me, when I see other tribes that actually have the backing of other institutions outside the State of Michigan, the city of Detroit, that oppose their brethren from achieving the same goals they did. I'm also disturbed because we have those that are non-Native that have their title in question that will never, in fact, unless we act, have that title cleared up. And that's our responsibility in this body.

There is justice, there should be justice, for American Indians. And, by the way, I believe I am the last one on that committee that voted for the original gaming legislation for American Natives. Chairman Udall and I passed that legislation. I believe Mr. Dingell probably voted for it, and maybe Mr. Conyers voted for it at that time because we thought there was an opportunity there to improve the economic base of the American Indian, and we approved correctly.

Now, those that oppose gaming, I understand that. I don't gamble. That's not my thing. But I also will tell you I don't disrespect those who do gamble. And as the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) said, I could even hit a golf ball across that river to that gaming place in Canada, and I want some of that Canadian money to come down to America instead of its going from America to Canada.

In the fairness of this bill, we should vote ``yes.'' In fairness to the American Indians, we should vote ``yes.'' This legislation should become a reality. The State of Michigan Senators support it. The Governors support it. The legislature supports it. The communities support it. The police officers support it. And only those that oppose it have another interest.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to the floor of the House many times and trying to explain to the public what peak oil mean. I have to say I was a doubter, and over the period of time that you have explained this to me I became a believer.

It looks, as you have said before, as the population growth, the consumption factor and what we have available. It's sad that we haven't addressed this issue.

Now I am one of the ones that believes in drilling as you mentioned but I also agree with you that now we should step forward and solve the problem for the future today.

We can do this with all the efforts--because if we don't, like you say, your grandchildren and your great grandchildren and possibly your greater grandchildren are going to face a great dilemma.

I am confident, as this Congress goes forth, or the people demanded that we will find solutions to this. But right now it has been too easy to buy oil from overseas, not realizing we were running out. We got accustomed to it, like you say, going to the cookie jar and not looking down the road.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman.

I mean, you are doing a great favor for this Nation to try to awaken the people that, yes, we can drill and we can solve the problem, and we may lower the prices temporarily.

But what we ought to be doing is utilizing some of our oil now and taking the revenues that are generated and put it into that--and I reluctantly say this--from Alaska, but into the bridge to the future, so that we will have those alternative forms of energy.

We can move products with other than fossil fuels. We can manufacture with other than natural gas.

There are a lot of things that we just must do. Again, I want to thank the gentleman for doing this, and I am pleased to be part of your effort and hopefully, as time goes by, this Congress will wake up. Right now, they are not. But you keep doing it and maybe the public will wake them up.

If the gentleman will yield just one more time, you are absolutely right. There is nothing that we do that doesn't have an environmental impact. The only thing we can do to stop having an environmental impact is stop living.

We can face up to that, what can be done, and we have done that, is to do it as safe as possible, and that can be done. But the trade-offs, if we don't drill, and take those dollars and put them in renewable sources of energy, the trade-off is a disaster environmentally.

I have said this, if you want to see a disaster where they haven't been able to develop, as they should, their fossil fuels, et cetera, go to the countries that cut every tree down, because it's the only source of power they have.

You go to Ethiopia, you go to other countries of Africa. There is no living thing that can be burning because there is no other forms of energy. That's what I don't want to see this Nation--let's look for, as you mention, let's recognize it as an invite. Material oil will run out, let's use the revenues now and plan for the future and have availability of energy.

If we do it now, then we are going to be in good shape in the future. Not you and I, but you and your grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and deeply respect the previous speakers.

I understand why they are trying to do this. It's unfortunate that some people don't remember the whaling industry started in Massachusetts, and maybe they're trying to forgive their sins.

Having said that, this resolution is being brought up under a procedure that does not allow amendments, and frankly this resolution does nothing to save the whales. More than 37,000 whales have been taken since the International Whaling Commission, IWC, implemented a moratorium on commercial whaling.

Under the existing International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, member nations of the IWC could continue to take whales under a number of procedures. While I do not necessarily support commercial whaling, the current convention allows it for those nations that took a reservation against a commercial whaling moratorium.

This resolution naively suggests the United States can somehow end commercial whaling by itself at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission, which starts next week. Very frankly, this resolution is nothing more than a fund-raising gimmick for those environmental groups that oppose whaling.

This resolution does nothing to save the whales. In fact, it might do the opposite. If the IWC cannot come to some agreement on how to move forward, Norway, Iceland and Japan have all signaled in recent years that they want to take either more whales or more species of whales. Under the current rules they can do so. This resolution may do nothing more than encourage those countries that dig in their heels to increase their take of whales.

In addition, the resolution says nothing about the need for the United States delegation to the IWC to protect the Native rights to harvest whales. To the Native people on the North Slope of Alaska, whales mean food. Alaska Natives have harvested whales for centuries, and they continue to do so today.

Although they have taken whales for centuries and depend on the bowhead whale to survive, they must constantly defend their need and their cultural heritage. I want to compliment my Alaskan Natives on our North Slope. They were told there were only 500 whales left when they were put on the endangered species list.

They did not believe that. They hired the best professors, the best scientists in the world, and, in fact, found out there are over 15,000 bowhead whales, just to prove the point that the science was wrong.

To the Native people on the North Slope of Alaska, whales mean food. This is not an issue of politics to them.

They have done everything the IWC has ever asked them, and they still get their quota taken away from them because people think using the whaling issue is good for fund-raising. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has done more scientific research on bowhead whales than any government has ever done on any whale species. Every time the quota is up for renewal in the IWC, someone comes up with a new theory on why Alaskans should not be allowed to take the number of whales they need. And again I will say ``need.''

Their quota is based on their need for whales as food. I can't say that enough, for food. To them, the whale is a necessary part of their culture and a necessary part of their dietary needs. Every time their quota is up, someone comes along and puts another hurdle in front of them that they must meet to get their quota.

The International Whaling Commission is broken. There are two groups of countries that show up each meeting and fight about which one of them has the moral high ground. There are those countries that are anti-whaling and those countries that are pro-whaling.

The two sides have been in an arms race for years to see which side can get more countries to join the IWC so they can have a simple majority and pass a meaningless resolution before the other side gets a majority and passes meaningless resolutions to support their point of view. Neither side is ever likely to get enough countries on their side to make any change in the convention because it takes a three-fourths vote. While they are having this fight about which side has the moral high ground, they use the Native people, who rely on whales for food, as political hostages.

At the 2002 meeting in Japan, the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission's quota was denied because of those policies. It took a special meeting of the IWC to restore the quota to my constituents. This is not a matter to be taken lightly and cannot continue. Alaska's quota cannot be held hostage every 5 years for other countries' political whims. It cannot be held to a higher standard and required to do more and more to satisfy someone's new theory about the bowhead whale that might mean a change for the Alaskan quota.

Members need to be very careful about how they talk about whaling, because the United States is a whaling Nation. Alaska Natives have harvested whales for centuries, and they continue to do so today. This resolution does nothing to highlight the importance of Native peoples' need to harvest whales and may only further inflame the hostilities at the IWC and quite possibly result in an increase in the number of whales killed in the future.

I hope that the member nations of the IWC will come up with something new to resolve the impasse we are at today, but I am afraid the resolutions like the one today will do nothing to resolve the problem and may actually make things worse. The only people who continue to be hurt are the Native people of Alaska, and I don't think that's right.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and we do have a great deal of admiration for one another, but you have to understand, in 2002 our quota for my Alaska Native people, their heritage and their culture was held up by one of the IWC members, Japan. And we had to have a special session to get the quota reinstated, and they should not be used as a political ping-pong ball. I want to stress that.

If I thought for a moment, and I am not for commercial whaling, but I am saying that if I thought for a moment this would stop it, I would be supportive of the resolution. But until we recognize the fact, because I do have Alaskan Natives, heritage-wise and cultural-wise, that do take whales today for needed food, they are being held hostage because we belong to the IWC.

I will tell you, my friends, what's going to happen, there is nothing that says Iceland, Japan or Greenland, wherever it may be, has to belong to the IWC. They can pull out and kill all of the whales they want to kill, and you and I can't stop that, whether it is on our endangered list or not.

I do think there ought to be a cease-fire between these groups. Quit using my people as hostages, and see if there isn't a solution of some type that will appease both sides. In the meantime, they kill 37,000 whales under the loophole, and IWC doesn't have the arbitrary right to close that loophole unless there is some agreement.

Now this resolution makes everybody feel good and look good and they can go back and say I saved the whales, but it doesn't do anything. I just think that is the wrong thing to do when, very frankly, you are hurting other people, and this is their right. And they have established the fact that there aren't 500 bullhead whales, there are 15,000 bullhead whales, and they take 19 a year of 15,000. I want you to think about that a moment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I do thank the ranking member, and I do thank my chairman for cosponsoring this legislation and being supportive of it.

On July 7, that marks the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Alaska Statehood Act, as approved by the United States Congress and signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Alaska would officially be admitted as a State January 3, 1959.

I introduce H.R. 127 which commemorates this occasion to recognize all of the people of Alaska who represent the pioneering spirit which built this great Nation and contributes to our culture and ethnic diversity.

Alaska is the most northern, most western, and most eastern State in the Union and composing an area one-fifth the size of the United States. And for all those trivia buffs out there, Alaska is roughly 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas.

Purchased from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million, or 2 cents an acre, after Congress had concluded its resources would be vitally important to the Nation's future growth. At the time, the purchase was nicknamed ``Seward's folly'' because it was believed foolhardy to spend so much money on a remote region. Secretary of State William Seward would have the last laugh, though.

Alaska is the source of 16 percent of the daily crude oil in the United States, has 44 percent of the country's undiscovered resources. Alaska's 34,000 miles of shoreline form a gateway to one of the greatest fisheries in the world, providing for 60 percent of the country's commercial seafood harvest.

Alaska has 230 million acres set aside in national parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests which are visited each year by more than a million tourists. To give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, the State of California has 103 million acres. We put aside 230 million acres for parks and national wildlife refuges. Forests add to Alaska's beauty and provide a renewable economic resource with 28 million acres of commercial forests.

Alaska contains half of the Nation's coal reserves and its largest silver and zinc mines. Glittering gold in Alaska's streams and mountains still lures miners to work private claims. About 50 million acres of soil in Alaska are suitable for farming. About 1 million acres currently are in production.

I know that the people of Alaska will continue their commitment to the preservation and protection of this great State, but they also want to develop the resources. Alaskans are proud, strong, and independent Americans who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, and I'm honored and humbled to stand here today on their behalf as we again recognize this great important date in U.S. history.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, right above you there is a plaque, placed there in 1949; it says, Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers and build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy of being remembered. Daniel Webster. Let us develop our resources.

Alaska has the key to the solution of many problems of this great Nation, especially the energy crisis, and I ask this body as you recognize the 50th anniversary of the great State of Alaska, recognize what we can and what we have contributed to the Nation as a whole. As the 50th State, we are proud and we are extremely excited with the possibility to contribute more in the future. And I do urge my colleagues to pass this resolution

I thank the gentleman, the chairman, and the ranking member.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance of understanding the supply side of energy. And we may not be able to lower the price, ladies and gentleman, at the gas pump, but we can at least stabilize it because if you think this is going to go down if we don't have a supply side, you're badly mistaken.

We just saw something last week which shocked many people. We had a jump of $11 a barrel in one night because of some action in the Middle East. And that could affect us down the road where it's $137 a barrel, $137 a barrel today. We predict it's going to go $200 a barrel if we don't get the supply side moving.

I will tell you if we have one action on the floor of the House to take and address the supply side, the price of a barrel of oil will drop automatically $10 to $15 a barrel. It might go back up later on. But it eliminates the speculation. It would show those that say we're not doing anything as we have not done for 35 years after the pipeline itself was built.

The Saudis, the Middle East, the OPEC countries will not increase production when they can get $137 a barrel. Why would they? Ask yourselves if you own something, why would you produce more to lower the price?

The only way we can do this is to increase our domestic supply, not only just oil, but all forms of fossil fuel and alternate forms of energy. And as the gentleman from Indiana mentioned, if we do not do that, we are not serving our constituents as we should.

It is the future of this Nation to allow the productions. Remember the quote I had right above the seat of the Speaker: Let's develop our resources.

As we celebrate this day, the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Statehood by an action of Congress, that's all we ask. Let us develop our resources. That's all I ask you now. Let us develop our resources for the good of this Nation. That is our responsibility. This is not politics. This is reality.

Again, for Mr. and Mrs. American, the price of oil and gasoline may not drop dramatically, but it will drop and it will stabilize if we address the supply side. If we do not, it will rise more, more, and more. Not good for the nation. Not good for the future generations.

Mr. Speaker, when this bill came out of the committee, I thought we had an agreement where there would be an offset and a payment of the bill. Unfortunately, that did not occur, so consequently I will be voting against this legislation because it doesn't do what it says it is going to do. Very frankly, this is funny money, and the schools won't be, as we want them to be, funded, and that is unfortunate.

But I am also going to talk about a lot of the statements on the floor, and my good friend from Oregon has to understand that I do watch the debate. There were some statements made that I think were incorrect, in fact I know, not think, about ANWR and about PET4 and about independence.

There has been no oil shipped overseas from Alaska. It all goes to the West Coast, at one time through the Panama Canal, through a pipeline, for American consumption, all 17 billion barrels of oil. And if we were to open ANWR or the Chukchi Sea it would go to the United States. It wouldn't go overseas to China or Japan. We could make sure of that as we vote for it on this House floor, as we did when we had the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

I think it is important that the American public recognize that we do have a supply problem. And anybody who denies that, I have heard these arguments for 25 years, well, we only do have one month or 6 months or whatever it is oil supply, so we shouldn't do it. If we have that 1 million barrels a day, Chavez would not have the ability to blackmail us, or if Nigeria had an upheaval, there wouldn't be the spike in oil prices.

A lot of people are pointing their fingers at all the problems, the big oil, the speculators, and I do think there is some merit in the speculators because they know we haven't acted on the supply side ever since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Not one time.

Let's follow this train a little bit further. If we don't increase our supply, Mr. and Mrs. America, instead of $4 a gallon, it is going to be $10 a gallon by January 1.

We must act in this Congress, and if you do not, may the wrath come down on you and may you be punished for what you have not done. We must address this issue in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to consider the supply side. Consider it. And this legislation itself has its weak points, too.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Bill Number: H.R. 5658, Air Force, RDT&E, Line 221, PE #0708611F (Support Systems Development).

Legal name and address of entity receiving earmark: Biomass Energy Systems, Inc., 100 Overlook Center, 2nd Floor, Princeton, NJ 08540.

Description of how the money will be spent and why the use of Federal taxpayer funding is justified: This project is underway to introduce alternative energy sources based on locally available resources for the USDOD and in Alaska. The Air Force, APTO, Eielson AFB and BESI have forged an alliance to create an alternative energy source program to be implemented in Alaska. The program consists of three phases. First, an integrated waste to energy system consisting of waste gasification, gas cleanup, and a gas engine to convert waste-based fuel gas to electricity will be demonstrated using wood waste and other locally generated wastes at Eielson AFB in Fairbanks, AK. After the testing is completed and any modifications are identified, the gasification system will be relocated to a local village, to demonstrate the system in a typical local setting as a backup source of power. After testing the system under local conditions is completed, the system will be integrated in parallel with the existing petroleum-based system. Initially the system will operate as backup for the existing system with a gradual change over to a primary role. This provides a practical model of sustainable renewable energy for the USDOD facilities, as well as the Alaskan villages.

Description of matching funds: BESI is currently under contract to the U.S. Air Force, APTO to deliver a final design for a 1MW system for Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. This is a Congressionally funded project from FY 07 and the contract is worth $848,040.00.

Authorized Amount: $4,000,000.

Project Name: Eielson Air Force Base Alternative Energy Source Program.

Detailed Finance Plan: $2,300,000 Equipment Gasifer and Genset; $700,000 Instrumentation and Controls; $1,150,000 Construction and Installation; $550,000 Shakedown; $300,000 Project Management.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Bill Number: H.R. 5658, Army, RDT&E, Line 6, PE # 0602120A.

Legal name and address of entity receiving earmark: Alkan Shelters, LLC, 1701 S. Cushman St., Fairbanks, AK 99701.

Description of how the money will be spent and why the use of Federal taxpayer funding is justified: In an effort to support the needs of the Special Operations Community with regard to establishing remote area communications and intelligence, Alkan has designed a C4 module capable for use on the smaller ATV platforms. The module design incorporates the latest in satellite communications, UAV & IR camera surveillance and military mesh network antenna systems. It will provide a means by which to gather field intelligence and transmit this data back to the tactical operations center. This project funding would be used to build a military ATV vehicle and C4 module and has already received $500,000 in funding from SOCOM.

Description of matching funds: This project has received $500,000 in funding from SOCOM.

Authorized Amount: $1,500.00.

Project Name: Command and Control, Communications and Computers (C4) module.

Detailed Finance Plan: $300,000, ATV; $300,000, Shelter; $300,000, C4 Components; $600,000, Engineering.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Bill Number: H.R. 5658, Navy, RDT&E, Line 181, PE # 0206623M.

Legal name and address of entity receiving earmark: Alkan Shelters, LLC, 1701 S. Cushman St., Fairbanks, AK 99701.

Description of how the money will be spent and why the use of federal taxpayer funding is justified: In an effort to support the needs of the Special Operations Community with regard to establishing remote area communications and intelligence, Alkan has designed a C4 module capable for use on the smaller ATV platforms. The module design incorporates the latest in satellite communications, UAV & IR camera surveillance and military mesh network antenna systems. It will provide a means by which to gather field intelligence and transmit this data back to the tactical operations center, This project funding would be used to build a military ATV vehicle and C4 module and has already received $500,000 in funding from SOCOM.

Description of matching funds: Alkan Shelter, LLC will contribute internal R&D in the amount of $100,000.

Authorized Amount: $2,000,000.00.

Project Name: EMI Hardened Expandable Shelter.

Detailed Finance Plan:

Phase 1: $300,000 Engineering; $200,000 Testing; $150,000 Materials.

Phase 2: $200,000 Engineering; $300,000 Testing; $400,000 Expandable Shelter.

Phase 3: $150,000 Engineering; $300,000 Testing.