Don Young

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: Battle Command Battle Lab, Mr. Jason Denno, Deputy Director, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613. Description of how the money will be spent and why the use of federal taxpayer funding is justified: The Constant Look system is a prototype biometric sensing capability developed for the U.S. Army to support MOUT (military operations in urbanized terrain). Its unique stand-off capability gives users an ability to support surveillance and special operations remotely. User comments from several demonstration tests included requests for enhancements to improve usability and extend the capability of the system in terms of what can be collected. The Constant Look Operational Support Environment (CLOSE) will provide that additional functionality by leveraging several proven off-the-shelf technologies--a stand-off digital collection system and additional digital signal processing (DSP) to extract other types of biometric signatures. The U.S. Army's ISR Battle Command Battle Lab at Fort Huachuca (BCBL- H)--responding to user requests--has developed and tested a stand-off biometric sensor system that allows traditional and special operations units to conduct surveillance and identify potential hostiles from a safe distance with a low probability of detection. To date, the majority of the effort on Constant Look has focused on the core collection system technology and the user interface has not kept pace with available commercial technology. CLOSE will remedy that by leveraging millions of dollars in commercial investment and integrating that investment into the Constant Look baseline. CLOSE will provide CL users with a rapid capability to collect and model surveillance target facilities, including ingress and egress, from the same stand-off range as the CL collection system itself. Secondly, it will extend the DSP capability resident within the CL baseline to extract other types of Indications and Warning (I&W) data. Description of matching funds: Not applicable. Authorized Amount: $4,000,000. Project Name: Constant Look Operational Support Environment (CLOSE). Funding Source: Army, RDT&E, Line 177, PE #0305208A (Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems). Detailed Financial Plan for Earmark: $200,000, System Engineering; $500,000, Immersive Camera System; $900,000, Interior Tactical Blue Force Tracking, Sense-Thru-The-Wall Radar; $1,500,000, Improvements; $650,000, Biometric Databasing; $250,000, Training, Testing, Delivery. Total: $4,000,000.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First let me thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mrs. Davis, for her fine work in bringing this legislation, and of course, Mr. Wittman, for your fine work. As a freshman, I deeply appreciate it. Congratulations on doing an effort for our National Guardsmen for Alaska. Much has been said today, and I will not repeat that, about the Alaska National Guard, the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry, that went to Kuwait and Iraq and what they were able to do. I would just like to mention one thing. The majority of these young people came from many areas of the State of Alaska, about 80 communities in the State of Alaska. If you think about it a moment, going to Iraq, more so even Kuwait, and the change in temperature, that was a marvelous thing to witness when some of those people came back and told me it was not only hot, but also it was cold, which they're somewhat used to. But they went over without any complaints and returned, by the way, in body, all 586 members, back to Alaska. I have to say, this is what we call the ``citizens' army,'' the families they left behind, the families that welcomed them home. We have to recognize the importance of the Alaska National Guard and the National Guard of the Nation and the role they play, a role much larger than ever expected to play by being deployed time and time again. I hope we do address that issue in the near future. I also like to suggest that they did the work over in Iraq and Kuwait by receiving three Bronze Stars, 12 Meritorious Service Medals, 142 Army commendations, and 200 Army Achievement Medals. So they did their job as they were over there. I had the privilege of going to Camp Shelby in Mississippi when they got off the ship and came back to the United States soil and to speak to them there. As I told them then, I not only support the troops, I respect the troops and the jobs they did. They were charged as civilian soldiers to go overseas. They were charged to do a duty and they did it with great valor, and that I deeply respect them for. I think this body must recognize the importance of the National Guard, not only in Alaska, but across this Nation, and continue to support the families and individuals themselves as they serve this great Nation. This is a good piece of legislation in recognition of a great unit. I again thank the chairman and the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member. I do thank all of you, my colleagues, for supporting this resolution and supporting not only the Alaska National Guard, but the National Guard in total. I rise today to honor the Alaska Army National Guard and the 586 members of the Alaska Army National Guard's 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry who returned in October from their year long deployment to southern Iraq and Kuwait, in the largest deployment of the Alaska National Guard since World War II. The 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry was deployed from October 2006 to October 2007 and spent the year as security forces in northern Kuwait and southern Iraq since October 2006, successfully guarding camps and convoys heading into Iraq. The guardsmen came from all over my State, with members of the unit hailing from 80 different communities across Alaska, including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kodiak, Soldotna, Kenai, Nome and many Native villages. Thankfully, all 586 who deployed overseas were able to return safely to those communities. Many of these Alaskans had never ventured Outside prior to mobilizing, and the climate in the Middle East could not be more different from that of Alaska, but not one hesitated to serve their country, even if it meant facing temperatures of 130 degrees. They served with distinction as well, inspecting and searching over 30,000 semi-trucks and designing all of the force protection plans for northern Kuwait. They were recognized for their service, earning 3 Bronze Stars, 12 Meritorious Service Medals, 142 Army commendations and more than 200 Army Achievement Medals over the course of their deployment. I was honored to be invited to their welcome home celebration at Camp Shelby in Mississippi this past October. I was humbled to spend time with them and, as I told the National Guardsmen at Camp Shelby, ``You can't support the troops unless you respect them. I humbly respect you because you have done your job as you were charged to do so, and as volunteers. You left your families and you went forth and accomplished what you were taught to do.'' I truly believe that the importance of the National Guard to our country cannot be overstated, which is why it is important that we honor these citizen-soldiers. We must not, however, forget the families of these citizen-soldiers, who make their own sacrifice for our country and earn nothing but the thanks of the Republic. And so I respectfully urge the House to pass this resolution, to thank those citizen-soldiers from Alaska and to thank their families. It is the greatness of these citizens from which America derives its own and we would all do well to remember that. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that cosponsored this resolution.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the chairman for yielding. This is about energy and about the budget, and this is about the Arctic wildlife range in Alaska. We have voted 12 times on this floor; in fact, I think Mr. Spratt voted for it, Mr. Dingell voted for it, or will vote for it, to try to open the last great known elephant in oil fields in the continental United States. If we were to do so today, we would deliver to the American public 1 million barrels of oil for 30 continuing years--a day. Thirty years, 1 million barrels a day. That's the very minor estimate. But more than that, it would provide, this year, if we were just to lease it, $191 billion in revenue for the budget, $191 billion for the lease and the development of ANWR. And in 3 years I can deliver to the American public 1 million barrels a day or more. That's more than Venezuela. That keeps Venezuela from jacking the prices around. If we were to do it, my good friends, it would drop the price of oil about $10 a barrel immediately; not because we're delivering it, but it would be the first time this Congress has worked on the supply side, and the speculators would stop speculating if they saw that Congress was serious about developing our national and our Federal lands in fossil fuels. Why we don't do that I cannot understand. Yes, we do have to change our modes of transportation in a period of time. But there's no way you can bridge the ability of not using fossil fuels in the short-term. Now, you think about the consumer today in Alaska, and you think about the consumer in the rest of the Nation and what they have to do at $4 a gallon, maybe $5. And I have estimates it may go as far as $10 by the end of the year, and that's going to be on your watch. We're here talking about the budget. But if we want to solve the budget problems, let's create some dollars. But more than that, let's create less dependency on foreign oil. How we can sit here as a body and send dollars overseas, and the billions of dollars; to give you some idea, the average tax for every man, woman and child, everybody listening to this station tonight is paying $2,085 per every man, woman and child in tax to the foreign countries, burning their oil. Seventy percent of their oil. And some people say, well, it's the oil companies. Nonsense. This is about demand globally and supply. We're not the only buyers anymore. America's not the only ones that have automobiles. America's not the only one using fossil fuels. China is burning more barrels of fuel today than we are, and that drives the price up. We're no longer the only buyer, and the seller can ask for the price they're going to get. The only way you can relieve that is start developing our national, on Federal lands, our oil for the good of the American people. Why we're not doing this, I don't know. And remember, you heard me before on this, well it's not your fault, it's not our fault, it's this fault, the body of this Congress. We've got to stop pandering for those who say no to developing our fossil fuels. We have to stop pandering for those saying it's going to be a total climate change because it is going to happen in this world. They will be burning oil, and we'll be unable to take and support our people until we develop our fields as we should develop them. I'm hoping America's listening. I hope America will wake up to the fact. We have the ability to do it here today. We have the ability to solve the budget problem, but we have a better ability to solve the energy problem in America. I'm asking my fellow colleagues, let's do it. Let's do it today. Let's do it in the future. Let's solve the problems of energy in this Nation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman of the subcommittee and Mr. Shays and the chairman of the full committee. It is indeed an honor that I will speak on Charlton Heston today. We have already heard some of the roles that he played in ``Planet of the Apes,'' ``Julius Caesar,'' ``Antony and Cleopatra,'' ``Omega Man,'' and I can go on down the line. His famous roles, of course, were Moses, Michelangelo, Andrew Jackson, John the Baptist, Mark Antony, El Cid, and Ben Hur. Some people may not remember his role in politics. He became very active as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Before every actor in the world got involved politically, he was involved in the Screen Actors Guild. He was also very active and involved, as mentioned by the chairman, in civil rights. He marched with Martin Luther King. And one of my interests was that he enlisted in the Army Air Force in World War II and served 2 years as a B-25 gunner in the Aleutian chain, a God- awful place it was, but part of my great State of Alaska, and defended against the enemy at that time with great honor. He had two children. He married the love of his life, Lydia Clarke, in 1944, and was married to her for the rest of his life. He was the president of the NRA from June 1998 until April 2003, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush. I have to say I knew him personally. I never called him Chuck or Charles, it was always Mr. Heston or Mr. President because he was president of an organization which I am very proud of, and that is the NRA, the National Rifle Association. He probably did more to protect the freedoms of America in his actions as president of that organization than any other individual. And that may not be proper with certain people in this body, but he did guarantee us, through the second amendment, the right to protect ourselves, the right to protect the castle which we live in, the right to be able to protect those that we love against those who would do us harm. He believed in it, as I believe in it. It is very, very important. If America were to recognize one individual who probably contributed most to our individual freedoms, it would be Charlton Heston.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for bringing this technical corrections bill to the floor. I will be supporting this bill today because it is a good bill. I want to again thank my minority member, Mr. Oberstar. When I was chairman, we had worked very hard on TEA-LU. It was the only positive piece of legislation this Congress passed in 6 years. When I say positive, it left a part of infrastructure, not all of it, for the good of this Nation. I take great pride in that because it probably created about 185,000 new jobs, $286 billion to be spent for the infrastructure and for the economy of this great Nation. I bring that up because I hear some people talking about, well, we will repeal the 18.2 percent tax on fuel to help our consumers out. Then goodbye to the roads, the repairs, the new needs for the additional automobiles on our highways. I say beware. It will be a terrible disaster for this great Nation of ours. We have other ideas about solving the high gas prices, but that is probably the worst I have heard of all. Having said that, I am going to go through a chronological order of what has occurred about the issue of Coconut Road. In 2001, I became chairman of the House Committee on Transportation, a position I held for 6 years. This committee is the largest committee in the House of Representatives, with oversight over all modes of transportation; aviation, highways, railroads, all public buildings, waterways, and emergency management. As the only Congressman from Alaska, I worked very hard for the State of Alaska. I worked with the Governor, State legislature, and local officials. I can say with great pride we did very well for the State of Alaska because we need transportation in that State, as every other State needs it. I want to remind people, the responsibility of a chairman is to address the transportation needs in all of the country. As chairman, I worked with officials throughout the country, Governors, mayors, transportation officials, and, of course, all 434 Members and delegates of this body. As we prepared for the writing of the national transportation bill, members of our committee and I traveled extensively throughout the country at the request of House Members and State and local officials. For the thousands and thousands of transportation projects requested of us, I visited as many communities as possible to meet with the Members, local officials, and public to discuss these requests. In 2004, Florida Gulf Coast University President William Merwin commissioned a study of a road improvement that would increase the university's ability to cope with hurricanes and other disasters. One of the recommendations in the report was for the construction of an on- ramp from Coconut Road to I-75. In 2005, the City of Bonita Springs hired a consultant to determine if the interchange at Coconut Road and I-75 would improve traffic congestion on Bonita Beach Road, Corkscrew Road, Old 41, I-75 and Coconut Road. The study determined that the Coconut interchange would take 9,000 cars off of Bonita Road and Corkscrew Road each day, but add about 6,000 cars per day to Coconut Road. In February 2005, I was invited by a congressional colleague, who was a member of the Transportation Committee, to his district in Florida to hear the needs and concerns of local constituents. On February 19, a town hall meeting was held at Florida Gulf Coast University, whose arena also serves as a hurricane shelter. This town hall meeting was attended by more than 200 local constituents, transportation officials, and elected officials. One of the issues discussed at the town hall meeting was the need for a hurricane evacuation route to ensure that people could get to safety more quickly during a national disaster. This project was to be an interchange from the heavily traveled I-75 highway to Coconut Road, which leads to the Florida Gulf Coast University in Bonita Springs. At the town hall meeting, University President William Merwin spoke of the need for a research center at the university that would focus on transportation improvements using new technologies. He also presented a study showing the need for the interchange at Coconut Road to help hurricane evacuees reach the two main shelters in south Lee County. The goal was to provide $10 million for a study, not to build, but study this interchange. I also would like to note, to the credit of the Florida delegation, this area received $81 million for the widening of I-75. This funding was totally justified and important to the area. The $10 million for the Coconut Road study did not take any money away or divert any funds of the $81 million allocated for I-75 widening. The $10 million for the Coconut Road was funded separately under the national highway bill. Otherwise, it was money above the line. This interchange study had the support of the Florida Gulf Coast University, the Technical Advisory Committee, which consisted of city and county transportation experts, and the local citizens' advisory committee. The Bonita Springs City Council and the Regional Planning Council Staff have also supported the interchange study. The Technical Advisory Committee and local citizens' advisory committee voted unanimously to include the study in the long range Lee Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation plan. Unanimously voted for. However, the Metropolitan Planning Organization voted not to include the interchange study in their long range plan. They instead wanted to transfer the $10 million to another project, including I-75. While I don't agree with this organization's decision, I respect it. It's important to stress that this study funding did not go to any one person, it did not go to any one group of people. The funding was to go to the State of Florida, were they to choose to proceed with the study. This has always been a good project. The residents of this community deserve to have a safe and effective evacuation route for themselves in case of a national disaster. With Hurricanes Katrina and Rita we saw firsthand what happens when Americans are unable to get to safety. But for now, I support these residents in their wanting to put this money towards another project. I have always supported the community's right to do what they think is best for them. The change is in this technical corrections bill, and I support it. So why I am talking about this, other than to give the chronological order of event that occurred? Well, it's very easy. I have been the subject of much innuendo concerning my intent and motivation of this project. These accusations have little, if any, connection with what actually occurred. I outlined my intent and motivations on this, and it is quite different from what I have been hearing lately about this study. Some of the media have made this study into being about one land owner in the area. Not one word has been mentioned about the hundreds of people who attended the town hall meeting in support of this study or about the numerous local organizations and officials who supported it. This study was included in the largest national highway bill in history. There were more than 6,200 high priority projects, some call them earmarks, in that bill. About half of these were sponsored by the Democrats and Republicans of this body. About half were sponsored evenly by Republicans and Democrats in the other body. These 6,200 high priority project earmarks from the House and Senate totaled 5 percent of the total highway bill. Five percent. Two committees handled this bill, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee. Four committees worked on this bill in the Senate. I did not write this bill by myself. There were six committee chairmen, six ranking members, and dozens of subcommittee chairmen and subcommittee ranking members, members of both party's leadership, and countless others who played major roles in the legislation. The 6,200 high priority projects, earmarks, were requested by virtually every Member in this House, other than 14 Members of the House, including Mr. Flake. This body had nothing to do with the projects requested by the other body, and they had nothing to do with those requested by this body. This was a massive bill that was not completed until several months after the previous highway authorization had already expired. Members and staff were literally working around the clock until we were able to pass the bill in July, 2005. As to the debate concerning the process of the enrollment of this and any other legislation, that is not a process I own or control. There are officers of the House and the Senate whose job it is to oversee this process. A committee chairman does not control the enrollment process. I have never been in an enrollment office, and I do not believe any chairman has that right. After all the accusations and rumors about this bill, I hope this sets the record straight. This project was asked for by the community, it was supported by the Congressman from that district, and there are letters to back that up. But, the Senate is meddling in House affairs. I am supporting this bill. I welcome, if you want to welcome, an investigation into the House. I will support that. But, remember, that is a slippery, slippery road which we are about to be involved in. We have an opportunity in this bill to stimulate the economy, keep our people working. I am going to support this legislation. But keep in mind that Coconut Road was not my idea. It was created and fostered by the local people of that community. It's not the first time in the enrollment process. Even in this bill, Jacksonville was mentioned in the bill. What we didn't know, when the Senate and the House voted on it, was that there were six Jacksonvilles in this Nation. It had to be changed, and it was changed prior going to the President's desk, and the House never voted on it. I can go on to other cases where legislation has been changed by the enrollment process when it is considered not the intent of the House. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank God for George Bush. He's created the hurricanes, the earthquakes and the high price of gas. There is only one group responsible for the high price of gas for the consumers of America and that's the United States Congress. They have done nothing, nothing since 1973 to increase the productivity of fossil fuels in the United States, and they still are doing nothing, Mr. and Mrs. America. They talk about it. They blame Mr. Bush. That's it. The best thing you can do is blame the other guy. The truth of the matter is that until we start drilling and until we start liquefying coal, until we use the offshore oil we have available, until we use the ANWR in Alaska, we're going to pay a lot more. The prediction we have now, by the first of next year a barrel of oil will be, get this, $180 a barrel, because the consumers abroad in other countries are consuming oil at a greater rate than we are. But we sit here and say we're going to solve it by putting $800,000 on the dome of the Capitol to save, in 200 years, 10 bucks. What's wrong with this Congress? And remember, I said ``this Congress.'' You haven't done the job. You're not doing the job. Until we wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America, and start drilling as we should drill, you're going to pay a lot more at that tank. You think about it, $200 a barrel 2 years from now, you'd better get a bicycle.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding because we're talking about innovating small business and helping small business in this country. And that's well and good, and I congratulate the chairman and, of course, the ranking members on this legislation. But, Madam Chairman, it's all for naught, it's all for naught, unless we address this issue of energy. Small business can't run on hot air. Small business can't even survive in this Nation or progress unless we solve this energy problem of fossil fuels. And you may have heard me last week saying it's not your fault other than the fact you're in the wheelhouse now. You're in the wheelhouse. We were there for 12 years, and we didn't solve it either. But you said you would do that. You would lower the cost of energy for small business and the consumers of this Nation. That has not happened. Realistically, this Congress cannot do it unless we address the issue of production. Not pie in the sky but production. There's no shortage of fossil fuels in the United States of America. There's a shortage of the will to develop it. We just had a sale in Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, $2.6 billion. And they tell me, the geologists, there's more oil there than there is in the Gulf of Mexico. But we can't, in fact, develop it because of a lawsuit by certain interest groups in this Nation who do not want that developed. We have the Beaufort Sea. We have the Aleutian chain. That's just Alaska. And for those of you in California, you have more oil off your shores than we do in Alaska if you'll develop it. But you have not done so. We have not done so. We have the Gulf of Florida. We can't do it. We have the Rocky Mountains, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and we have not done so. We have not passed one piece of energy legislation in this body that produces any energy that runs these small businesses. So I ask you, my colleagues, how can you stand here on the floor and sit on this floor and talk about innovation for small business without addressing the energy problem? Each man, woman, and child this year will pay a $2,000 tax to foreign countries, each man, woman and child in the United States of America, for buying fossil fuels overseas and not developing those fossil fuels within our borders. That's $2,000 a year, the largest tax of any one family, a family of five, a $10,000 tax, to the Saudi Arabians or Venezuela or Kuwait or Iran or Iraq. Seventy percent of our fossil fuels today are being imported because this body has not solved this problem, and should do so. Some of you on that side, some on this side voted to open the Arctic Wildlife Range in Alaska 12 times in this House. We did get it out of the Senate once, and Bill Clinton vetoed it. He vetoed it. We passed it 12 times here, 11 times; couldn't get the votes in the Senate. If we had it developed today, we would be producing enough energy so they couldn't raise the prices they are doing now. By the way, everybody says, Get the oil companies. They say, Get those dirty oil companies. We are not the only buyer on the market any more. China is now burning more barrels of fuel today than we are, and it's going to go up. Look at their automobile consumption. India is right behind them. Now some people say, Well, we don't need fossil fuels. We will use wind power and solar power, et cetera. I agree with all those things. But our economy is run on power that moves objects. Your product that comes and goes, comes on a vessel that is driven by fossil fuels. The plane, the train, the ship, and the automobile that delivers to the consumer is driven by fossil fuels. There is no quick solution with hydrogen, et cetera. If you want the economy to go forth and you want these small businesses to succeed, this Congress, and I ask the Congress on both sides to address this issue. Madam Chairman, let's solve the problem. Let's not have any more pie in the sky. Let's open these areas that have been put on restriction, because the oil is there, Mr. and Mrs. America. It's just that you have not asked us to open it. You preferred us not doing so as long as we can buy it cheap from a foreign country. And those days are over. Now this is my prediction. Oil now is at $120 a barrel. That means gasoline for this summer is going to be around $5 a gallon. But more than that, that means the power to run small businesses will not be available because we have not kept up the power in other areas. We don't develop the nuclear, which we should. We haven't had any hydro, which we should. Yes, we have a little bit of wind and solar. But more than that, we have not addressed the fossil fuel issue. So as we talk about small businesses, how we are going to encourage them, we are going to give them incentives, and have new imagination, that is well and good, but you can't do it without reasonable price power. So I charge this body, the leadership on that side, and I charge this side in the minority, to truly come to grips and address each area that has fossil fuels that we know where they are, lift the restrictions, and develop it for the future of this Nation, the youth of this Nation, and the businesses of this Nation. If we don't do that, we are neglectful of our duty.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for scheduling this noncontroversial bill for floor consideration today. H.R. 831 will provide for the conveyance of approximately 12 acres of surplus Forest Service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska. The 12-acre parcel sits in the middle of town adjacent to the site of a new Inter-Island Ferry Terminal that the city hopes to use to help spur economic growth. In addition to being an obstacle to the ferry terminal and any new economic development in the city's downtown, the location of the parcel makes it difficult and inefficient for the Forest Service to manage. As such, the conveyance provided for in this bill would benefit both the city and the Forest Service, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will do so at little or no cost to the taxpayer. To give you some background, Mr. Speaker, Coffman Cove is a small, isolated community with about 200 residents that developed around a Tongass National Forest logging camp and work site. While the timber industry and the jobs it once provided in the region have largely disappeared, the community remains, and opportunities for economic growth and expansion are limited by the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by the 17-million-acre Tongass National Forest. I don't expect to change that anytime soon, but I think it is more than reasonable to convey 12 acres of surplus Federal land located within the community's economic center. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a fair and commonsense solution to a problem. The tiny parcel of land is of no use to the Forest Service and it is an impediment to the growth and economic well-being of an isolated community surrounded by a National Forest larger than the State of West Virginia. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 831.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I deeply appreciate the recognition, and I do appreciate the chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boozman, for the legislation we are discussing today; but I cannot sit idly by and listen to the people talk about the high cost of energy when there has been little action in this Congress, and I will say ``this Congress,'' the past Congresses and this present Congress about solving the high cost of energy to the American consumer, the $4 a gallon that they're going to have to pay. The last time we passed any energy legislation on this floor was 1973. We passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That's the last time. At that time, we were importing 38 percent of our fossil fuels. Today, we are importing 70 percent of our fossil fuels. Mr. and Mrs. America, keep in mind 50 percent of that fossil fuels is coming from countries that are not friendly to the United States of America. We are sending them over about $500 billion a year because this Congress, this Congress, has not acted to try to relieve the dependency on fossil fuel from abroad. Now some people will say, and I listened to the young lady, we are going to take up alternate forms of energy, and I'll buy that. I'll put the little curlicue lightbulbs in. I'll do that. I'll save and turn down the thermostat. I'll do that. I'll, in fact, drive my automobile slower. Most people do not. But that doesn't solve the problem of the energy we need to move product. The chairman knows full good and well, being the chairman of the Transportation Committee, our economy is based upon the ability to move product to and fro within this Nation. The ship it brings us is driven by fossil fuels. The truck, the plane, the automobile, the train is driven by fossil fuels. And if we continue to become more dependent, which we apparently are going to do under the leadership of this Congress, we'll be in the point where we cannot move our product, ship them abroad which we produce, nor receive them. Seventy percent, again from foreign countries. And yet we have a tremendous amount of fossil fuels, the United States of America, that's not being developed. It should be developed. Offshore. Chukchi Sea, there's more oil in Alaska than there is in the Gulf of Mexico at a relatively shallow depth. The coasts of California, the coast of Florida, the Rocky Mountains, the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina has a tremendous amount of oil in the realm of about, I would suggest, 500 billion barrels of oil. That's available to the American public. But we have a leadership now in this Congress that believes that the world is coming to an end, led by Al Gore, that the world is coming to an end if we burn fossil fuels. I suggest respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. America, if we do not lower that price to the small business community and to the person who has to commute to their work site, we are in a dire shape in this Nation as a whole. We have to address this issue. I ask my colleagues, please quit buying this concept that we are going to do it with windmills and with sun power. Yes, we could use those things. Yes, we ought to use nuclear, and yes, we ought to use hydro. The wheel of energy should be developed, and this Congress has not done it. Has not done it. We have this idea we are going to solve the problem. Look at the energy bill we passed this year through this leadership. It produced nothing. Period. Nothing. That's why the consumer today, in America, is going to that gas pump, and by the way, it's a tax to him. Every man, woman, and child is paying $2,000 a year to Saudi Arabia and countries such as because we sit idly on our hands doing nothing. Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully this Congress has to wake up. I listen to the political rhetoric of all of the presidential candidates, and nobody is addressing the energy issue other than the fact that we can't burn fossil fuels because we are losing the icecap and the polar bears are in danger. Think about this for a moment. Think about the American public and the need for economy-based, fossil fuel driven because it moves an object. We must address this. I'm asking my colleagues to understand that. Quit pandering. Quit pandering to the interest groups that really are trying to socially structure our Nation through fear. We have the fossil fuel. It is here. It should be developed. We should give the opportunity instead of restricting it, and that's what we've done in this Congress. In my state alone we have ANWR. It's passed this House 12 times. It passed the Senate once and Bill Clinton vetoed it. It's got about 36 billion barrels of oil available 74 miles away from an existing pipeline. And this Congress will not step forth and address that issue alone because they say it's going to hurt the environment, 74 miles away from the existing pipeline. Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully let's get off our duffs, and let's do the job we should for this nation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker and my fellow colleagues, today is the day with General Petraeus to recognize that with all the rhetoric on this floor, that we should listen to the troops. They are the ones that are sacrificing. They are the ones that I believe have firsthand knowledge of what is occurring in Iraq. I have a letter that I am going to read: Dear Congressman Young: I am an Alaska Army National Guard soldier serving in Iraq voluntarily on one of the 10 `surge' Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams, based at Camp Taji. My team works in the Taji and Abu Ghraib districts, and soon, Tarmiya. Our surge military forces, along with the greatly improved Iraq Army, Police and local Critical Infrastructure Security Forces have won the battles. Al Qaeda is gone from our districts. Now we need the time to win the war. The security situations are set and 180 degrees turned around from pre-surge. I've seen it happen and am living it daily. Do not let the United States lose this part of the Global War against Terrorists. This campaign in Iraq needs to play out and be a visible win for our country. Me and my fellow Servicemembers and the Civilians of DOD and State are here to make it true. We need your support. Thank you for your time and attention. WE ARE WINNING. Most Sincerely, Mike Bridges, Colonel, Deputy Team Leader, EPRT Baghdad 5.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Marine Mammal Cooperative Agreements in Alaska Amendments of 2008. The 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act created section 119 of the Act, titled ``Marine Mammal Cooperative Agreements in Alaska,'' which allows the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. These cooperative agreements have been very successful in creating statewide and regional Alaska Native Marine Mammal Commissions protecting species such as the polar bear, walrus, sea otters, beluga whale, harbor and ice seals, and Steller sea lions. The cooperative agreements have provided grants to Alaska Native Marine Mammal Commissions to conduct important marine mammal data collection efforts, marine mammal research, and monitor subsistence activities. Alaska Natives have been excellent stewards of Alaska's natural resources for centuries. The Alaska Native Marine Mammal Commissions have continued this tradition by working cooperatively with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to successfully manage the species under their respective jurisdictions. In order to further this success, the Commissions have advocated for management of subsistence activities. Section 119 of the MMPA does not currently allow for management of subsistence activities prior to a depletion finding under the Act. In 2000, the Clinton Administration sent Congress a draft bill to reauthorize the MMPA and included in it authorities for the Alaska Marine Mammal Commissions to manage and enforce subsistence activities. The Bush Administration followed suit including similar language in its own draft bill to reauthorize the MMPA. I have not taken the exact approach of the Clinton and Bush proposals, however, I do believe this legislation will achieve the same result. I have worked with the administration, the Alaska Native Marine Mammal Commissions, and State of Alaska representatives to develop a bill that allows for management prior to a depletion finding under the MMPA. The Whaling Convention Act of 1949, which governs the Bowhead whale subsistence activities, and the more recently passed legislation implementing the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Treaty, governing the subsistence take of polar bears, are two excellent examples of legislation Congress passed to authorize marine mammal management activities. This legislation will further refine the cooperative management process under the MMPA to ensure that Alaska Natives and the Federal agencies with marine mammal management authority have the tools they need to continue their successful management efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this important conservation legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, there have been many items of unfinished business which flowed from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, which was originally enacted on December 18, 1971. A number of these issues have been resolved over the years. Few of those unfinished items, however, stand out in my mind as much as the need to provide land selection rights to the members of the 13th Regional Corporation, which was formed by ANSCA primarily to represent Alaska Natives residing outside of Alaska at that time. Today, with the 13th Regional Corporation Land Entitlement Act, I address that objective. I am pleased to be joined in this sponsorship by my friend and colleague from Washington State, Congressman Norm Dicks. For me, both of us, this completes a significant goal of the original Act. Let me give you the background of this issue and the story of the 13th Region. In 1971, after years of debate, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., ``the Settlement Act'', extinguishing claims by Native Alaskans based on aboriginal land rights. The Act divided the State into 12 geographical Regions which were to be composed as far as practicable of Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interests. In addition, non-resident Natives were given the option either to enroll in one of the 12 Regional Corporations established for each region or to elect, by majority vote, to form a separate 13th Regional Corporation to represent the interests of non-resident Alaskan Natives. Provision for the 13th was focused upon serving the interests of non- resident Alaska Natives while affording them their fair share of the settlement. Some non-resident Natives had been dislocated during and after World War II, others left their homes to serve in the Armed Forces, many left to attend high schools and colleges in other States, and still others, for economic reasons, migrated south in the hope of attaining employment. Information about the Settlement Act and its implications for non-resident Natives was difficult to obtain, spotty and inconsistent in character, and generally insufficient to enable individual non-resident Natives to make reasoned decisions. In this situation, a majority of non-resident Alaska Natives felt that their interests could best be protected by forming the non-resident 13th to better control and direct their own affairs. Ultimately approximately 4,500 Alaska Natives chose to enroll in the new 13th. Wherever they resided then, or now, however, they were and are Alaska Natives, and we honor them. In opting to join the 13th, however, these non-resident Natives were deprived of the ability to fully participate in the settlement of their claims as that settlement was generally provided by the Act. Let me be specific. Monetary payments under the Settlement Act were made through the Alaska Native Fund, and distributed among all 13 Regional Corporations on a per capita basis, but land was distributed only among the 12 resident Regional Corporations and the Village Corporations within those regions. No additional money, however, was provided to the 13th to compensate for the absence of land. The Settlement Act also provided that the 12 Regional Corporations would share among themselves some of the revenues from all natural resource development occurring on the lands conveyed to them. The 13th did not receive this right. In sum, Alaska Natives enrolled in the 13th did not receive any land, and did not receive additional money in lieu of land, and did not get any right to participate in distributions from the pool of natural resource revenue funds in which the other Regional Corporations shared. The 13th, being comprised of non-resident Alaska Natives, was thus denied full participation in the settlement provided by the Settlement Act. While some will claim that this was their choice, it seems clear that it was an inadequately informed choice, and resulted in depriving over 4,500 members of the 13th of two of the three major benefits of this Act. This bill seeks to resolve at least the absence of an entitlement to land. Over the years, the effect of this inequity in the Act has been to substantially disadvantage the shareholders of the 13th as they tried to build an economically successful corporation and to deny them the benefits of land ownership in Alaska. As an example, the 13th received its pro rata share of the monetary payments under the Act but was obligated to distribute 50 percent of those proceeds immediately to shareholders as they were received over a number of years. The remaining 50 percent provide the only capitalization for the small corporation with many scattered shareholders. Without a land base or resources to develop, the 13th did not have the economic base, nor the crucial development alternatives afforded other Regional Corporations. The corporation did not receive revenues from the development of resources, such as timber harvest which was accomplished in several regions, or a share of Sec. 7(i) revenues, including petroleum revenues, which were a source of income for the 12 Regional Corporations. The 13th has survived but with some difficulty, and it is time to provide a fairer share of the settlement to them for their future. To correct the inequity caused by the Settlement Act's failure to equally compensate non-resident Natives for the extinguishment of their aboriginal land claims, the 13th Regional Corporation Land Entitlement Act will place the shareholders of the 13th on a better footing with shareholders of the other Alaska Native Regional Corporations, at least as far as land is concerned. The proposal authorizes the 13th to select land from the excess lands previously withdrawn by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior on behalf of other Regional Corporations. The proposed legislation gives absolute priority to land selections by the State of Alaska and other Native Corporations, regional and village, and prohibits the selection of lands from within conservation system units, as defined in the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act. The 13th may not select from the National Petroleum Reserve, the Tongass or Chugach National Forests and other sensitive areas. In other words, the 13th is at the very end of the line for its land selections. This is nonetheless far more equitable for the 13th than the present situation. In proposing this legislation, the shareholders of the 13th are seeking equity by being placed on a stronger and more equal footing with respect to the Native shareholders of the other 12 Native Regional Corporations. This is supported by the Alaska Native community. This proposal has been endorsed by the Alaska Federation of Natives and by the Association of Regional Corporation Presidents, and it has been thoroughly considered by the Alaska delegation. My first term in Congress was the one immediately following the enactment of ANSCA in late 1971. I can tell you that neither the Act nor its implementation focused much attention on the 13th. They were not fully represented, so members of the Washington State delegation like the late Congressman Lloyd Meeds and Senator Henry Jackson took their side but were not able to accomplish land rights for the 13th, or a monetary settlement in its stead. Congressman Meeds believed throughout his life that this was a matter that required resolution. What the 13th will receive under the new bill is, with one major exception, the same per capita land right that all other regional corporations received, no more and no less. The number of acres is arrived at by taking the total number of acres conveyed to the other Regional Corporations pursuant to Section 12(c) of ANSCA, 15,769,600 acres, and after subtracting Sealaska's shareholders, Sealaska received a separate entitlement, and the shareholders of the 13th, which received no land, dividing this 15,769,600 acres by 60,026, the number of original Native shareholders enrolled to the other 11 Native Regional Corporations. On a per capita basis, the shareholders of the other 11 Regional Corporations received approximately 262.7 acres per original shareholder. This per capita number multiplied by the 4,426 original shareholders of the 13th results in the 1,162,710 acres. The bill gives absolute priority to land selections of other Native Corporations and the State of Alaska. Additionally, the bill prohibits the 13th from making selections within conservation system units, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, and other potentially sensitive public lands. All other interests, from the State to other Native corporations and the conservation community, were able to make their land selections or designate large areas for protection and special management. All of these groups won congressional approval, and were able to secure their preferences, when the land eligible for selection was prime and high on the list of priorities. The 13th comes behind all other priorities, including State and Native selections, national conservation lands, and others. The intent is that the land of the 13th will be selected in a cooperative process with other land owners and can be complementary to those selections, by other regions or villages, the State or other public purposes. I believe this is not only fair but good policy as Alaska moves forward. It is simply time to resolve this long-standing inequity, and to provide the 13th Native Region with the right to a limited land base just as all other Native regions. I urge my colleagues to join with me in achieving this goal this year.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for introducing this legislation. I am the cosponsor of the amendment, and I thank the chairman of the full committee. The proportion of married U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher today than in any other previous war, including the Civil War. Consequently, when these brave men and women are killed in the line of duty, they often leave behind husbands, wives and children. Since 2001, more than 4,400 U.S. servicemembers have died during their deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan, and more than 2,100 children have lost a parent as result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nine months after Fort Wainwright's Stryker Brigade Combat Team returned from their deployment in Iraq, Bassett Army Community Hospital in Fairbanks delivered a record number of babies. Those babies will be a year old when their parents redeploy this fall. This amendment, which I have offered with the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, will ensure that they deploy with the knowledge that, if necessary, their children's education will be taken care of. Our amendment will provide financial assistance and access to higher education for children who lost a parent or guardian as a result of our ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It allows the children who have been left behind to have access to a maximum Pell Grant award by waiving the income eligibility requirement for them. It will apply to children of U.S. soldiers who have died while performing military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. Children who are 18 years or younger or those enrolled part time or full time at college at the time of the parent or guardian's death will be eligible for a Pell Grant application starting in 2009. The death of a parent is not only emotionally devastating for a child, but often creates a financial hardship for the family. Through this Pell Grant award we can offer a chance for a bright future for the children of those who gave their lives in the name of service for their country. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and help those children who have been left behind. I would like to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas for offering this amendment with me and reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan way to solve some of the problems caused by this war.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I will point to you next time. We are importing 12 million barrels a day from our enemies, thanks to you; 12 million barrels a day, at $100 a barrel. Mr. and Mrs. America, remember, $1.2 billion a day we are sending overseas because of the majority not supporting energy development. That is $438 billion a year that we are sending overseas, to not our friends, but to our enemies, the Chavezes, and to the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, a little bit to Russia, because we don't have the courage to develop our oil and our fossil fuels in this country, thanks to the majority. And we just voted on a stimulus bill today. Big deal. If you are taking that up, $438 billion a year, we are imposing a $1,460 tax on every man, woman, and child in America every year because the majority will not support energy legislation. Oh, you are going to support a trail today, taking taxpayer dollars again for recreation, but you will not support energy in this country. And this Congress, especially the majority side, has never, ever supported energy production in this country of any type, nuclear, even wind power, and certainly not fossil fuels. That is what is wrong with this Nation today. We are bleeding the economy from our bodies to support overseas countries for fossil fuels which we have on our shores, on our shores and off our shores. We are disallowed from developing the Rocky Mountains. We are disallowed from drilling off the coast of California. We are disallowed from even drilling off the coast of Alaska. And, of course, the majority will never support opening ANWR, which has 39 billion barrels available for America. And for those out there, my colleagues, every time you fill your gas tanks, it doesn't hurt you too bad. But Mr. and Mrs. America as they go to work are being taxed by you. The stimulus package, everybody might get $1,000. But remember, everybody is going to be taxed this year $1,460, every man, woman, and child in America, because this Congress on the majority side doesn't have the courage, the courage nor the wisdom, to develop necessary energy in this country which we have. I ask you, when are you going to wake up? When is this body, and even the Presidential election that is going forth today, I don't hear anybody talking about developing energy sources. I hear about conservation and light bulbs made in China and filled with mercury. Wait until you try to dispose of those, Mr. and Mrs. America, and see what happens. I say shame on us. This bill today is a trail that people say they need and they want. But I suggest, respectfully, if you don't address the energy bill, you will never be able to have anybody walk on it. You might as well make your highways into trails, because you won't be able to run your trains, your planes, your automobiles, or your ships. And that is the economy of this country. That is the economy of this country. If you can't move product to and from, if you don't have the energy within your factories to produce those products and hire the people, you don't have an economy. You don't have an economy. You don't have an America. You don't have freedom. You don't have the Nation of the United States of America. We were made great because we had a source of energy. We were made great because we had hydro and we had fossil fuels, the coal that drove our steel mills and produced the greatest war machine to stop World War II in history. We used our coal because we needed it. We had it and we did it. Not today. You can't do it. So, as I say, Mr. Chairman, this Congress has a tremendous responsibility and you are not living up to it. You passed an energy bill that produced nothing but hot air. Nothing. Conservation, yes, we are all for that. But it had no production in that bill of any source of energy. And yet we say we passed an energy bill. It will come back. It will haunt you. And some day down the line your grandchildren and all those around you and their grandchildren will say, what was Congress thinking about? The greatest Nation in the world, the greatest Nation in the world became a third-class country. The greatest Nation in the world, because we didn't produce our energy. We didn't provide for the future generations. And for those that don't agree with me, thank God these words are going down. And some day along those lines they will say, you know, the gentleman from Alaska had a point that they should have listened to, but they did not. It is too bad they didn't, because we are where we are today, not the democracy that they were then and not the greatest Nation in the world, in fact a third-class country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. In what line? What did I say wrong?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for his excellent presentation on this legislation, and, yes, the chairman, too. There is just a matter of a difference of opinion. Again, the majority on that side is more interested in creating recreation and amusement opportunities than creating jobs and affordable energy. It is ironic to me that one of the States, in fact both of the States, named in this bill, none of their Representatives or their Senators have ever voted for any energy development, not one time. And consequently, they are paying, their constituents, a tremendous price for energy they are consuming. Just last week, the Boston Globe published a story that said: ``Massachusetts manufacturers pay the highest electricity prices in the Continental United States,'' thus discouraging industry coming into the State. In fact, it is leaving. A 200-year-old paper mill in Lee, Massachusetts, was shut down because of high energy costs, a loss of 160 jobs. Now, some of these workers may get an opportunity to be retrained to cut brush on the trail we are trying to set aside today. Of course, that pays the minimum wage. It is ironic to me that this was all caused by a lack of action in this Congress. New England needs energy; and if I can remind this body, and good morning, Mr. and Mrs. America, that is our number one problem in this country today, is energy. That side of the aisle, not only the side of the aisle in the House but also in that other body, now because of you, we are importing-- Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, here we go again; another nail in the coffin of energy independence. Another nail, in fact, adding to the unemployment rate. If this bill was to become law, mines will be shut down. They will be shut down. And what bothers me the most is we had a bipartisan bill, actually it was passed in 2006, I believe, or 2007, that improved the 1977 Mine Safety Health Act. It was supported by everybody, that side and this side, the administration. And we have not given the time, that's less than a year and a half, given the time for the operators of these mines to even reach that requirement that we said was the right thing to do. Now, it always amazes me. I don't think there's much coal mining in Vallejo or in the Bay Area or in Point Reyes. And I do respect the gentleman from West Virginia because he does have mining. And I've heard from his operators in that area that there's a very difficult thought process going forth with this bill. Can they operate? Because in this bill, they stop the ability for belt air, which, in fact, was put in for safety purposes, supported by the people who understand this, for diluting methane and dust levels, and this bill prohibits that. How is that improving the life of our miners? It is not. And more than that, I want to remind people. As bad as it may appear, as very much, you know, heart wrenching when there is a death in a mine, we still have the safest mining industry in the world. China lost 6,000 people, that we know of last year in their coal mines; building one new coal fired plant a week. And here we are, with this bill, if it was to become law, again, adding another nail in our coffin for energy independence. Coal is a solution to this terrible dependence that we have on foreign oil. I was a little disappointed today when I saw the President ask the OPEC countries to produce more oil so we can lower the price. Our fault in this country is we're not producing oil on our lands, which we have, and we're not producing the coal, which we have an abundance of. And I believe, when saying this under the guise of helping the miner out, we are jeopardizing their jobs, jeopardizing the economy in this country, and driving us further into the depression which may occur. If that does happen, I want to compliment that side of the aisle, because you haven't addressed the issue of energy. And I'm a little bit disappointed. I watched all the Presidential debates. Not even on my side, let alone that side, has anybody talked about solving the energy problem in this country. We must address that issue because our economy is based on energy that can move product. Every ship is fossilly driven. Every train is fossilly driven. Every truck is fossilly driven. Every car, everything you eat and everything you consume is delivered to you by fossil fuels. Now, we can improve nuclear power to give us fixed power, and we can burn coal, and we can use solar, and we can use hydro. We can do all these things. But there's fixed power. And we, as a Nation, and this Congress have not got to the point where we understand if we don't do something, we keep sending the dollars abroad, there's a great possibility that this whole economy we have will implode. I'm saying, wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America. Start asking your Members of Congress, let's do something about energy. You can't conserve yourself into a prosperity position. You've got to have new energy, new production. Yes, drilling. Offshore in California, shame on you. Offshore in Florida, shame on Florida. Offshore in Alaska, shame on Alaska. We must start developing our fossil fuels in the Rocky Mountains. We must start at the Roan Plateau, which you took off the table. The Roan Plateau, have that developed. We have to start doing what is necessary to make sure we're no longer dependent on those foreign countries that are not our friends. So I urge a ``no'' on this bill because it's another nail in the coffin that creates in this country more weaknesses and not the ability to provide for the future generations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My good friend from California, he is my good friend, you have to recognize that we have not done anything. When you were in the majority you did nothing. You in fact had President Clinton veto opening of new oil discoveries in Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Ten years ago. Again, everybody tells me we can do it at a later date. And what we're doing is nothing. I ask each one of you in this room that's sitting here today, I'm asking you, are we going to sit until this whole country comes to a collapse because we're not addressing the energy policy? The energy bill we passed here has produced no energy at all.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Daniel V. Kish and the 28 years of service he has provided to the State of Alaska and the Nation. In the summer of 1978, a young long-haired college student dressed in muddy work boots wandered into my office looking for an internship. Why he chose my office in particular, I do not know, though I suspect it had something to do with an attractive young lady working at the front desk, but he appeared willing and eager to work. Thus, after telling him to get a haircut and a pair of loafers, I put him to work. My staff and I were immediately impressed by Dan's strong work ethic, his innate understanding of even the most complex issues, and his natural ability to communicate to my constituents--both in writing and in spoken word--the practical impacts of the various legislative proposals before the Congress. In fact, when Dan returned to Indiana's Wabash College at the end of that summer to finish his studies, he left our office with an unexpected void to fill. The following year Dan had completed his undergraduate degree, and we had an open position to fill. Thanks to the good judgment and recommendation of the young woman who drew Dan into our office the previous summer, I tracked him down and asked him to come to work for me full-time. In the years since then, Dan has earned himself a well-deserved reputation as one of the most talented, dedicated, and knowledgeable staffers on the Hill. Dan has stuck with me through thick and thin. He has always kept my best interests, and the best interests of the State of Alaska, at heart. His devotion to me, the State of Alaska, and the Nation has been unparalleled. Dan's unwavering commitment to and understanding of strong Republican ideals, free market policies, and responsible development of our Nation's resources have been an inspiration to hundreds of Hill staffers and Members alike, and he has served as the moral compass by which the Resources Committee has sailed throughout his tenure. Dan's writing throughout the years has been equally inspiring. He is by far the single most impressive writer I've come across in 35 years. His talent and ability to get to the root of an issue in two or three eloquent sentences is unmatched. While Dan's use of words has always been powerful, it has often been humorous as well. A strong supporter of a free market economy, Dan once wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury recommending that the $1 coin bear the likeness of Dolly Arthur--the owner of a historic bordello in Ketchikan, Alaska-- suggesting that unlike Susan B. Anthony, she ``was truly a woman who knew the value of a dollar.'' This unique sense of humor has brought smiles to my face and many others for nearly three decades. But most of all, Dan Kish will be remembered for the genuine respect and appreciation he has always had for what he called ``the Working Man.'' Although his mind was often occupied in debates over esoteric federal policies, his heart has always belonged to the fight for the working men and women of America who get dirt under their fingernails rather than paper cuts on their pinkies. Dan tirelessly reminded us that American prosperity, national defense, and world leadership depend on the working men and women who operate the drill rigs, mine metals and minerals, harvest trees and crops, raise livestock, and pull the levers and press the buttons that control the dams responsible for irrigating the land and powering our communities. God has blessed our country with a bounty of resources, and Dan was always ready with a sermon to remind us that His gifts are there for us to use wisely. Dan's wise words will not be forgotten. While hiring Dan was one of the best decisions I've made in my 35 years in Washington, I think Dan would agree that coming to work for me was the most important decision of his life. After all, it's where he met his beautiful wife, Pam, the young lady who lured the long-haired college student into my office 29 years ago. I would be remiss if I did not also thank Pam Kish for everything she has done over the years, not only as a former staffer, but as a loving wife. The State of Alaska and the Nation as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to Dan Kish for his 29 years of service, and this House is a better place because of his good work. Ronald Reagan once wrote, ``Some people work an entire lifetime and wonder if they've ever made a difference.'' I know I speak for many in this body when I say there is no question that Dan Kish has made a tremendous difference during his tenure and will be sorely missed. While Dan is moving on, his impact on and contribution to our work in Congress is timeless. I can think of no one who is more widely respected and admired for his intrinsic understanding of and devotion to the things that make this Nation so great. I am forever grateful that Dan's path crossed with mine that day, 29 years ago so, while I stand here today honoring Daniel V. Kish for his years of service, his departure is bittersweet. Words cannot express my personal gratitude to Dan for his work, his counsel, and most importantly, his friendship. Thank you, Dan. I wish you and Pam the best in the next chapter of your life together.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 2764, which provides, among other things, $500 million for the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP). Our continued support for this program is vital for winning the war on terror and ensuring stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Petraeus himself recently described it as ``a critical tool with which to prosecute the counterinsurgency campaign.'' Our continued support for CERP will be especially important for achieving long term success in Iraq. The Iraqi people must be convinced that their lives are getting better and that their future is one of peace and prosperity, rather than violence and sectarian strife. As David Ignatius pointed out this morning in the Washington Post, ``the success of the U.S. troop surge seems to be bolstering, ever so slightly, the advocates of conciliation and weakening the partisans of sectarian war.'' However, ``[t]he recent progress in Iraq has resulted from bottom-up efforts to build trust, neighborhood by neighborhood.'' CERP has proven to be one of the key tools in this effort. CERP allows our military commanders and civil affairs officers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within their areas of responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately assist the indigenous population. The funding is allocated to brigade commanders to support a wide variety of small-scale relief and reconstruction projects, including reconstruction of water and sanitation facilities, school repair, restoring power stations, lines and generators, providing humanitarian relief, renovating cultural centers, museums and libraries, and repairing telecommunications infrastructure. Most importantly, CERP grants can be dispensed quickly and applied directly to local needs, rather than slowed down by the bureaucratic process in Washington and watered down by foreign contractors and subcontractors. As Secretary Gates recently explained in his testimony before Congress, ``. . .by building trust and confidence in Coalition forces, these CERP projects increase the flow of intelligence to commanders in the field and help turn local Iraqis and Afghans against insurgents and terrorists.'' CERP could also serve to be a key component in helping to normalize the more than 2 million internally displaced Iraqis and provide a stable environment for the more than 2 million externally displaced in neighboring countries to return home. The Iraqi Red Crescent Organization (IRCO), for example, has recently proposed a one-year plan to normalize up to 600,000 internally displaced residents of Baghdad into 120 self sustaining neighborhood units. The IRCO Neighborhood Reconstruction Program (NRP) could help provide unemployed IDPs with the opportunity to construct and service approximately 100,000 homes, 440 schools, 132 mobile health clinics, 60 water treatment plants, and 44 electrical generators. With the financial support of CERP and the Government of Iraq, this program would be coordinated through IRCO's existing 44 offices in Baghdad and, within a year, these formerly displaced people would have the opportunity live in homes with electricity and water, within neighborhoods that have access to nearby healthcare, schools, and jobs. We have an obligation to continue funding CERP so that the Iraqi and Afghan people can build peaceful and prosperous societies for themselves. The sooner this occurs, the quicker our troops can come home.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Renewable and Hydro-electric Energy for Alaska's Tomorrow Act, the Renewable HEAT Act. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize the Department of Energy to provide grants for carrying out renewable energy and hydroelectric projects. Similar, yet more restrictive, language was included in the Senate- passed energy bill, H.R. 6. The bill, written in secret behind closed doors by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is hardly an energy bill. More accurately described as the ``Energy Suicide Act,'' this bill will do nothing to reduce our dependence on hostile foreign nations, nor will it bring relief to Americans suffering from rising energy costs. In fact, it will do the opposite. The only positive aspect of this bill is the provision providing grants for renewable energy, and more importantly, Alaska small hydroelectric projects. Madam Speaker, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that tries to fool the American people into thinking we are going to be able to lower their energy prices. How can we lower costs and become energy independent if there is no production? Essentially, it is economic terrorism. And who is dictating the terms of this bill? The environmental groups funded by millionaires who don't lose any sleep wondering how they are going to heat their homes, as temperatures drop. We are approaching a state of crisis, where oil is trading for $90 a barrel. As I stated earlier, the only real energy provided for in the deceptive H.R. 6 is for hydroelectric power in Alaska. My colleagues seem to think that water is the only resource needed to keep a world power running. Since I cannot vote for this bill in its entirety, I have introduced this legislation to provide grant money for hydropower to my State of Alaska. Hydroelectric power is the Nation's largest renewable energy source and accounts for seven percent of America's electricity supply. Even though Alaska is one-sixth the size of the entire Nation, it is home to about 40 percent of the country's free- flowing freshwater. Rural Alaskan communities have the highest utility rates in America, paying up to six times the national average, while also suffering the lowest per capita incomes. Currently, heating oil costs between $3 and $5 a gallon. The diesel-fired electricity so many Alaskan communities rely upon is not only expensive, it's dirty. The generators are old, unreliable, and release pollutants into the air, and in order to conserve money, are usually turned off at night. The grants this bill provides will assist these areas in the transition to clean, more affordable energy by giving them the funding to harvest the natural flow of water that surrounds them. It has become clear to me that the United States Congress has no intention of taking care of the American people by making sure they can heat their homes and put food on their plates. Therefore, I must make sure my Alaskans are taken care of, while they endure some of the coldest temperatures in the country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My friends, it's not very hard to understand why our country is facing an energy crisis; in fact, it's very simple. America needs more oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower. We need more wind power. But Congress has refused to unlock these resources. This bill does nothing to release those resources allowed to provide us with the energy. It concentrates on corn, switchgrass, and a few hybrid cars. My friends, oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower are the backbone of this country. They supply more than 90 percent of our energy needs to fuel the world's number one economy. I would add that developing them does not raise the price of food, such as corn. There's no shortage of these energy resources in America. There is a shortage of the will to develop them. In fact, the majority leadership of this body, the last two Democrat Presidents and their allies in the environmental movement have created a false energy shortage through their constant attempts to lock up homegrown energy. Let me give you a few examples. They want to ban all offshore oil and gas development. They oppose U.S. oil production of North America's largest onshore prospect. They stopped oil and shale development in the omnibus spending bill. They opposed coal, and even applauded when President Clinton locked up millions of tons of clean fuel in Utah. They want the tens of trillions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas in the Rocky Mountains locked up forever. They oppose nuclear power plants; they, being the majority party. They oppose hydroelectric power. They even want to tear down nonpolluting hydroelectric dams in the Northwest. They want to impose high taxes on the use of energy, driving energy prices paid by your constituents to even higher than they are today. They even oppose using biomass of overgrown, unhealthy forests as a renewable fuel supply. In particular, the biofuel mandate in this bill is a direction to burn down forests and close more mills in the West. More than half of Alaska's Federal land, and we have enormous potential for a biofuels industry; this bill stops all of that. This bill will hold Alaska to the highest standards. Alaskans would be forced to purchase the most efficient, read the most expensive, appliances. The residents of the wealthy district in San Francisco have money to buy the most efficient, expensive furnaces and air conditioners, and I would bet most of them are inclined to spend their money on them. Many Alaskans, however, cannot afford to spend the extra $200, $300, $400 for the most efficient furnaces. Under this bill, they will have to. In a survey of 100 Alaskan communities, the average price of gas is $5 a gallon. The majority leader is playing Russian roulette with the economy. This year, every bill we've passed concerning energy is another bullet in the chamber of a gun staring point-blank at America's head, and by my count, it's already fully loaded. This is a bad bill. It's a charade. It's a disgrace for this body to vote ``yes'' for this bill. I am urging us to vote ``no.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, it was with a deep sense of loss that I learned that my dear friend and committee colleague Jim Saxton will retire at the end of the 110th Congress. Jim has served the Third Congressional District of New Jersey with the highest distinction for the past 23 years. Jim and I have not always been on the same side on a number of environmental issues; however, there is no question that he always articulates his views with passion and conviction. When I became chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee on January 3, 1995, I was honored to appoint Jim Saxton as the first chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He served as chairman of that subcommittee during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. He was a superb subcommittee chairman and sponsored a number of important conservation measures that became law during the Clinton administration. This included the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. This landmark law, which has been extended several time, created the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund to assist this highly endangered species whose population had been decimated to less than 40,000 elephants living in the wild. As a result of his law, in the past decade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved 183 grant proposals to assist Asian elephants. There is no question that these projects halted this species' slide toward extinction. A second bill was the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. This measure, Public Law 105-242, statutorily created the framework for volunteer activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the past 10 years, this Act allowed the number of volunteers to dramatically increase to nearly 40,000 Americans who contributed more than 1.5 million hours of service last year. The value of the volunteer work has been estimated in excess of $26 million and it represents 20 percent of all staff work done in the National Wildlife Refuge System. At a time when the Fish and Wildlife Service is suffering an operations funding crisis within the refuge system, it is difficult to imagine how this system would function without the valuable contributions of volunteers. A third measure was the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act of 1998. The fundamental goal of P.L. 105-312 was to eliminate the U.S. market for illegally obtained rhino and tiger products, and therefore, the incentives to kill these magnificent animals. Under this law, if a label on a product says that it contains rhinoceros and tiger parts, then we accept the manufacturer's claim and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for stopping its sale, confiscating any products, and persecuting the illegal importers. A fourth measure sponsored by Chairman Jim Saxton was the Arctic Tundra Habitat Conservation Act of 1999. This legislation allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake various conservation and management steps to reduce the exploding population of mid-continent light geese. These geese were systematically destroying the fragile arctic tundra in the Hudson Bay Region which is essential to the survival of millions of migratory birds. By all accounts, the implementation of this measure has been responsible for saving thousands of acres of vital wetland habitat. A fifth proposal which was signed into law was the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000. This legislation, P.L. 106-555, established a small grant program to fund the rescue and rehabilitation of marine mammals, it encouraged scientific work associated with live and dead marine mammals and it provided a small amount of financial assistance to marine mammal rescue centers. Federal agencies frequently ask marine mammal rescue centers to provide around-the-clock monitoring and veterinarian care to injured animals without giving them any financial assistance. This measure established a humanitarian partnership between Federal and non-federal entities. A sixth proposal was Jim Saxton's sponsorship of the Coral Reef Conservation and Partnership Act of 2000. Coral reefs are among the world's most productive ecosystems and they are often referred to as the ``rainforests'' of the oceans. These reefs are critical to the survival of thousands of fish species. Sadly, about 40 percent of all coral reefs are either degraded beyond recovery or in critical condition. This legislation was designed as a lifeline for our coral reef ecosystems by providing a limited amount of Federal funding to finance coral reef grants to assist in their protection and recovery. Finally, I am proud that Jim Saxton joined with me as an original co- sponsor of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. On October 9, 2007, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of this act which is Public Law 105-57. This landmark law established for the first time an ``organic'' statute for our 96 million acre national wildlife refuge system. It defined the term ``wildlife-dependent recreation'' to include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education. It also established a ``conservation mission'' for the system and required the completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge unit. The act gave wildlife dependent recreation priority consideration in refuge planning, management and funding. Finally, it required the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the likelihood of ongoing historic uses on private lands prior to their inclusion within the system. Jim Saxton authored this important provision. This is far from an exhaustive list of Jim Saxton's legislative accomplishments in the resources arena. It is representative only of the 6-year period that he served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates his dedication and commitment to wildlife conservation which he exemplified throughout his congressional career. His constituents living in Cherry Hill, Mount Holly, and Toms River, New Jersey, will miss Jim Saxton and his lifelong advocacy of Theodore Roosevelt's vision and principles. I look forward to working with Jim through the 110th Congress. I wish him calm sailing seas in the days beyond Congress. ``May the wind always be on your back and the sun shine upon your face!''