Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Bill Number: H.R. 5658, Army, RDT&E, Line 177, PE # 0305208A (Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems). Legal name and address of entity receiving earmark: Army Battle Command Battle Laboratory, Mr. Jason Denno, Deputy Director, Ft. Huachuca. Description of how the money will be spent and why the use of federal taxpayer funding is justified: (BRAMA-E) is a critical decision and training aid for commanders and operators to use in support of military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT). BRAMA is an integrated collection, planning, and course of action system. It integrates existing US Army developed blast modeling software with a state of the art 4D (Lat, Long, Alt, and Time) visualization front end. It is used by the Army to simulate blast analysis and vulnerability assessments. BRAMA provides decision support for anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) and critical infrastructure protection (CIP). BRAMA is a royalty-free tool and requires minimal training. It leverages previous US Army and US Air Force--force/facility protection R&D efforts. Starting in 2007, the BRAMA capability--along with training--has been provided to active duty Army, Homeland Security and National Guard representatives from 7 states. The US Army CONOPS for Force Protection highlights the need for a Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) tool. Additionally, user feedback post-delivery on BRAMA specifically asks for enhancements on the speed at which facility data can he generated and visualized. Research conducted by the Army in 2006 and 2007 has identified a candidate commercial technology that can be integrated into the BRAMA baseline to meet the CONOPS and speed up the collection process. BRAMA has demonstrated its usefulness to commanders, planners, and security forces by employing full-dimensional display technology to visualize, analyze and remediate blast effects generated by DoD- approved blast models. BRAMA-E will extend that capability by simplifying the case of use and helping the Army meet its goal to field a unit level Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) tool. Description of matching funds: Not Applicable. Authorized Amount: $4,000,000. Project Name: Blast and Damage Assessment Risk Analysis and Mitigation Application--Enhancements (BRAMA-E). Funding Source: Army, RDT&E, Line 177, PE # 0305208A (Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems). Detailed Finance Plan: $200,000 Systems Engineering; $200,000 Immersive Camera Systems; $400,000 Automate Dense Urban Environment Creation from Immersive Media; $600,000 GIS Database and Blast Analysis Integration; $500,000 Develop User Interface Workflow for Plume Modeling with GIS; $1,000,000 Plume Dispersion Model Integration and Plume Analysis; $600,000 Advanced Blast Analysis support for DoD and Homeland Security; $250,000 Base Data Collection and Delivery; $250,000 Training Sessions, Support, and Webinars.