Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the group today. I represent the southern district of New Mexico, New Mexico 2. I come with a chart today, and with a map of the district. Now, if you can visualize, I live all the way on the east side of the State, Hobbs, New Mexico. We are about 3 miles from the Texas border and represent all of the way to Arizona. Now, it is almost a 9- to 9\1/ 2\-hour drive to come across to the Silver City area, and then if we have to go further north up into the Zuni area, it takes an additional 2 to 3 hours. So each time I go home is a lot of miles. On a 3-day weekend, we have made up to 1,000 miles. On the 10-day breaks, we have been known to make up to 2,500 miles with events all of the way across. And then on our first 30-day break, our August break in my first year here, we had 29 different motel rooms and about 6,500 miles that we made to cover this large district. Now, my particular approach today is to talk about a rule that the new majority put into place when we voted on January 4, 2007. I will read from those rules, House Resolution 6, section 207, rule 23, item 15(a). A Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner may not use personal funds, official funds or campaign funds for a flight on a nongovernment airplane that is not licensed by the FAA to operate for commission or hire. Now, in the FAA there are basically two categories of operating for hire. There is the category of airlines. Those operate under section 121 of the FAA rules. The second section that is predominately used is section 135; that is, the charters. Those are the private aircraft that are used that you call, and they are like a taxi. They show up so they are called air taxis or air charters. Now, these are the only two categories who live in the West, in these broad, sprawling districts. We all represent about 6- to 800,000 people. That is determined by our districting process. So everybody represents the same number of people, but it requires a lot more ground for me to represent 600,000 people, so I have a small aircraft, a four- place aircraft, single engine, that I use to fly around the district. Now, when it takes me 9 hours to drive across this district, I can make it in about 2\1/2\ in that small aircraft. That is about the size of a Volkswagen. If I get in, the ceiling is just barely above my head. My knees are touching. And if people get in the rear seats, their knees are absolutely up against us. So this is not like some limousine service. This is just basically a small aircraft with a 210 horsepower engine, very economical. I would use the same gallons of gas to fly across the district as I would to drive across it. But according to the rules that are adopted by the new majority, we cannot any longer use this. I cannot even pay for this out of my own pocket to serve the constituents of New Mexico. It is against the rules. I will be held in violation of House rules. And why they did it, I do not know. It affects as many people in their party as it does ours. Now, given that backdrop, it is very interesting to see that the Speaker of the House now wants a 42-place aircraft to transport her. She was given the access to a Lear jet-type aircraft that the former Speaker used, 12 seats, 5 crew members, and those are very comfortable, plush seats. But now then she is wanting a 42-person aircraft with a crew of 16. The cost of flying that aircraft is $22,000 per hour. The cost for her to round-trip back and forth to California is going to be an astounding $420,000. Now, we just voted for an omnibus where we took funds away from our military, and yet she is asking the military to not only take funds away from the troops, but also to fund this $420,000 trip, presumably every weekend, because all of us try to go home every weekend. At the same time she has taken a constitutional provision for me to use my private property, to use my own funds, my own aircraft, and I cannot do that because she has made it against the rules. Now, we were told when the Democratic majority took over that there was going to be a new way of doing business, and we are finding out what that way of doing business is today. We are finding the willingness to limit people from using personal assets, while on the other hand reaching for these extraordinarily large perks. Madam Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to submit for the Record the actual words of the rule. Also I would like to submit for the Record the Washington Post article which brings out the observations about this new Speaker requesting these. It is dated February 6, 2007. And then I would like to submit for the Record the Lou Dobbs comments last night that she could take a circus with her. So we will submit those. H. Res. 6 Rules Restrictions on Members Travel

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Research Remediation Act. Methamphetamines represent a tremendous growing threat to the fabric of our society. Last year, I held more than 40 town hall meetings across Southern New Mexico, listening to law enforcement, health officials, recovering addicts, and other experts. Time and time again I heard horror stories about whole families in my district destroyed by methamphetamines. It is our duty as members of the United States Congress to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic. Mr. Speaker, methamphetamines are one the greatest domestic threats that our nation faces. We must confront its production, its trafficking, its abuse, and its effect on the land itself. Meth is a problem concentrated in the West and Southwest, but be aware that this great evil is moving across America, and soon no one will be able to say it is not their problem. As meth spreads across our nation it leaves a trail of destroyed lives, families, homes, communities, property and public lands in its wake. H.R. 365 the Methamphetamine Research Remediation Act of 2007 will set needed standards for the clean-up of property and public lands destroyed by methamphetamines. Unlike other drugs, the cooking of methamphetamines is hazardous to everything that it touches and can render houses and property uninhabitable. H.R. 365 will address the environmental impact of methamphetamines, and how to recover our properties and lands. In the Second District of New Mexico half-million dollar homes have been left uninhabitable, and state parks have become unusable. This destruction occurs because of methamphetamine cooking and the dumping of meth related chemicals. I fear that unsuspecting New Mexicans will encounter these environmental hazards and endanger their lives. H.R. 365 The Methamphetamines Research Remediation Act of 2007, will provide communities across America with the proper information and procedures on how to clean up meth labs and reclaim the land they have poisoned. This bill is the first in many steps we should take to track and fight Meth in our communities. I have introduced H.R. 304, the CLEAN TOWN Act to help in our battle against meth. As we talk about this bill, I hope my colleagues will examine my legislation that has tremendous promise to help change the way we fight drugs and drug dealers. I urge all my colleagues to join me in fighting Meth and help us save America's families.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Republican motion to recommit. Last year, I held nearly 40 town hall meetings across New Mexico talking to our local communities about combating methamphetamine use in our towns. Twenty of these meetings were in schools with our school kids, and we found that five times the national average of kids in New Mexico are addicted to methamphetamines, up to 15 percent of our elementary and high school students are already addicted. Two weeks ago, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and I announced our bipartisan determination to fight the dangerous scourge of methamphetamine use, production and distribution in our State. Tragically, the majority's ill-considered cuts will slash funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration Mobile Enforcement Teams, the MET teams, by $30 million and 134 agents, and Region Enforcement Teams, the RETs, by $9 million and 23 agents. Our local and State law enforcement officers depend on the MET and RET initiative as two of the most effective tools in this fight. Many officers in my district have told me that even at current level of funding, MET is insufficient. Perhaps the majority leadership has decided battles against illegal drugs are not worth fighting. A few moments with the individuals and families who I met with in my 20 school meetings and 19 additional town hall meetings might change their minds. But we did not seem to have time to consider the people and the effects on the lives of kids in the real America that we face today. We were explained, well, maybe we made a few mistakes. Do tell. We made mistakes that affect the lives of the young people of this Nation and the heart and the soul of this country. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Work with us to protect and defend the families of New Mexico and all of America.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this massive $463 billion dollar spending bill because it fails four critical tests: the accountability test, the common sense test, the compassion test, and most of all--the smell test. Hatched behind close doors by the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees with no input from Members or their constituents, H.J. Res. 20 levels a devastating blow against New Mexicans and their communities. Our most vulnerable low-income residents will pay the heaviest price. As Deputy Ranking Member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, I wish to point out that the Majority's arbitrary choices are ripping nearly one million dollars away from the public housing authorities in my district and the people they serve; including $272,428 from the Las Cruces Housing Authority; $158,355 from the Dona Ana Housing Authority; $30,461 from the Gallup Housing Authority; $40,717 from the Truth or Consequences Housing Authority; $15,076 from the Bernalillo Housing Authority, $43,596 from the Los Lunas Housing Authority; and a combined total of $416,173 from the Region V and Region II Housing Authorities. A Section 8 voucher manager of one of my District's housing authorities described these drastic cuts as comparable to losing an entire month's worth of vouchers to the poor and needy families she serves. Another New Mexico housing authority representative stated that 100 families per month could lose access to vouchers in the region that housing authority serves. The Majority's carelessly slung meat cleaver doesn't stop there. H.J. Res. 20 strips critical funding from the restoration of the Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission; essential economic development funding for a Business Park in Anthony-Berino; and desperately needed emergency ambulance services for the citizens of the Village of Columbus. Two weeks ago, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and I announced our bipartisan determination to fight the dangerous scourge of methamphetamine use, production, and distribution in our state. Tragically, the Majority's ill-considered cuts will slash funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) by $30 million and 134 agents and Regional Enforcement Teams (RET) by $9 million and 23 agents. Our local and state law enforcement officers depend upon the MET and RET initiatives as two of their most effective tools in this fight. Many officers in my district have told me that even at current levels, MET funding is insufficient. Perhaps the Majority's leadership has decided this battle isn't worth fighting. A few moments with the individuals and families whose lives this evil drug has destroyed might change their minds. But they don't seem to have the time to stop and think about how their choices will affect the safety of real people. H.J. Res. 20 also reduces the funding associated with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process by nearly $4 billion, causing delays in the scheduled repositioning of the 1st Armored Division from Germany to Fort Bliss and the Air Force Special Operations Command from overseas to Cannon Air Force Base. The Majority's decision not only perpetuates inefficient overseas bases; it severely impacts the painstaking community development plans devised by cities like Las Cruces, Alamogordo, and Clovis in New Mexico. Last, but certainly not least given the Majority's lip service in support of supplemental and alternative energy technologies, H.J. Res. 20 shreds funding for promising initiatives in this area. Consider, for example, a letter I submit for the Record from Karl Gawell of the Geothermal Energy Association. Mr. Gawell states that this legislation ``will be a serious setback for efforts in the House and Senate to restore the DOE geothermal research program.'' I have worked with Mr. Gawell to explore opportunities for expanded geothermal energy development in Southern New Mexico and I take his concerns very seriously. I hope that my colleagues will, too. Mr. Speaker, as one who remains committed to vigorously fighting wasteful spending, I understand--and share--the Majority's desire to eliminate unnecessary earmarks. A rushed and ham-handed bill designed for appearances isn't the right way to do it. My constituents deserve the chance to have their voices heard--an opportunity which the normal process of public hearings is designed to provide. Certainly, H.J. Res. 20 contains positive elements, such as the significant increase it provides in funding for veterans. I wish I could vote yes for that reason alone--but I cannot support a bill that inflicts so much pain on so many New Mexicans in an indiscriminate and slipshod manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a ``no'' vote. Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC, January 30, 2007. Dear Representative: I am writing to express our serious concern about the direction being set by the FY 07 Appropriations bill, H.J. Res. 20, that the House will be considered tomorrow. This bill will be a serious setback for efforts in the House and Senate to restore the DOE geothermal research program. While the bill includes a generic $300 million increase in funding for renewable energy, it allows the Secretary of Energy to distribute those funds. Meanwhile, we are told that the base for funding will be the Administration's FY 07 request, which for geothermal energy was ZERO! The House adopted an amendment last year to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill sponsored by Representative Millender-McDonald appropriating $5 million for geothermal research in FY 07, and the Senate Appropriations Bill as reported by Subcommittee and Committee would have restored the entire $23.5 million geothermal program. There is simply no justification for terminating geothermal energy research at the Department of Energy. Recent studies by the National Research Council, the Western Governors Association Clean Energy Task Force, and MIT all support expanding geothermal research funding to develop the technology necessary to utilize this vast, untapped domestic renewable energy resource. We urge the House to take action to address this tragic situation as it considers the FY 07 Appropriations bill and ensure continued funding for DOE's geothermal research efforts. Sincerely, Karl Gawell, Executive Director.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I would thank the gentleman from Iowa, and consider his comments to the fullest. I would congratulate my friends across the aisle for their attempts at activity in the first 100 hours. The truth is that, like my friend from Iowa, I am in business. My wife and I had a small business that we bought in, and we had four employees; 14 years later we had 50 employees. We sold that business when we came here. But I understand the creation of jobs and I understand the impact of taxes, the impact of what we do here in Washington. And I like the idea that we would move to bold action. I like the idea that we would compel these United States to be different and new and think differently. But I will tell you, there are some things that in the last 2 weeks have concerned me greatly. Several years ago I had the opportunity to visit Egypt. When I was in Egypt, I noticed that almost every building had rebar and unconstructed pieces on top. So I mentioned to a friend of mine who was in the embassy that, why are all the buildings unfinished here? His comment was that they do not tax the buildings until they are complete, and so no one ever finishes their house, their home, the building they live in. The top floor is always under construction. And if they get that floor finished, they continue on and put rebar out onto a new addition that may never actually take place. The truth is, that is a great example of one of the fundamentals of economics: The things that we tax more of, we have fewer. We tax complete houses, so in Egypt we have fewer full, complete houses. That same principle works here. Now, yesterday on the floor of the House we heard much language that certainly appeals to many people in this Nation, that we are going to get back at those big greedy oil companies, that we are going to tax the people who have taken advantage of the American consumer. I would just point to the photograph on my right, this is what we are taxing. If the principle holds that we have fewer of what we tax, then we would understand that there are going to be fewer of these monstrous oil rigs. This is about a $1 billion to $1.5 billion project that sits out either in the Gulf of Mexico or off of the California coast and they produce tremendous amounts of oil. I am from an oil producing State, New Mexico, but our oil wells are single wells coming up out of the ground. This one may have 20 or 30 wells that diverge out once it gets under the ocean. Our single wells may produce 50 barrels a day, and that would be a good well in New Mexico. These billion dollar investments might produce thousands or tens of thousands of barrels of oil per day. So like my friend from Iowa said, they contribute greatly to lowering the price of oil and, therefore, lowering the price of gasoline. Now, in our friends' enthusiasm across the aisle to raise the taxes on those oil companies that have produced so much, what they are actually going to do is raise the taxes on these facilities so that we produce fewer of these and fewer gallons and barrels of oil and gallons of gasoline, which means simply that the price is going to go up at the pump. Now, I am struck when we are faced with the comments that my friend from Iowa made; I am struck by the comments that he found issues in almost every bill that were like this, that had been poorly thought out yet not subject to the full complement of congressional hearings that they should have gone through, not subject to any amendment. And as I am thinking about his observations, I am drawn to a comment in the Detroit Free Press, and I would submit for the Record this entire document. But let me highlight this one quote. This is Mr. Dingell speaking, talking about the new greenhouse special committee that is being suggested by the new Speaker. And Mr. Dingell says, ``We should probably name it the Committee on World Travel and Junkets.'' Mr. Dingell told the Associated Press, ``We are just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor.'' [From the Detroit Free Press, Jan. 19, 2007] Dingell Is Overstepped on Climate (By Justin Hyde) Washington.--The battle among House Democrats over global warming heated up Thursday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the formation of a special committee to hold hearings on climate change, a job that had been under the watch of U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. Dingell, who has long opposed tougher fuel economy standards because of concerns about their effect on Detroit automakers, will still maintain significant control over any global warming bill through his chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has already asked former Vice President Al Gore to testify on climate change and told members last week that climate change would be a top priority through a series of hearings to be held soon. But the special committee reflects concern by Pelosi and other Democrats who want fast action on global warming that Dingell might object to provisions they support. Many House Democrats support setting higher fuel economy targets on vehicles as part of any effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions linked to a warming of the Earth. Dingell said he had not seen a detailed list of the committee's responsibilities. Pelosi's move increases the likelihood that Democrats will propose far tougher constraints on greenhouse gas pollution than the Bush administration wants. She also has outflanked for now--and angered--a few Democrats who head important House committees. ``We should probably name it the committee on world travel and junkets,'' Dingell told the Associated Press. ``We're just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor.'' Pelosi announced Thursday that she would form a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which would hold hearings and seek suggestions for ways to address climate change. She said Congress needed the committee ``to communicate with the American people on this important issue,'' and that Democrats would come up with bills by July 4. ``The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal,'' Pelosi said in a statement. ``We already have many of the technology and techniques that we need to reduce global warming pollution, and American ingenuity will supply the rest. With this new select committee, we demonstrate the priority we are giving to confront this most serious challenge.'' Pelosi and her aides did not disclose who would head the committee or how many members it would have, but no members of Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee will apparently be included. While the committee will hold hearings around the country, Pelosi told members Thursday it will not have the ability to write legislation--the key power of the Energy and Commerce Committee. What concerns Dingell and his allies is that Pelosi is using a select committee rather than a simple task force to highlight climate change. Under House rules, a select committee will have to be created by a House vote, and Pelosi aides say the committee will have Republican members-- features that sound more like a legislative body than a Democratic communications tool. The California Democrat has long backed environmental issues and has asked Dingell and other committee chairmen to submit their ideas for climate change legislation by June 1. But once the select committee issues its findings, Pelosi could rely on that for legislation or use it instead of what Dingell's committee produces. Energy issues already appear to be the hottest topic on Capitol Hill. House Democrats celebrated the end of their 100-hour legislative blitz by passing a bill raising about $15 billion in fees and royalties from oil companies. The revenue is aimed at financing research for alternative fuels and energy conservation. President George W. Bush's aides have said energy issues will play a key role in Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday. White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters Thursday that the President's speech would address the ``needs of security and, at the same time, also the environment.'' U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Menominee Democrat and member of Dingell's committee, said the select committee could be useful to ``highlight the importance of global warming'' and that it won't prevent Energy and Commerce from holding its own hearings. ``However, the legislative writing ability has to remain within the Energy and Commerce Committee,'' Stupak said. ``If suddenly there was a special committee . . . that had legislative writing powers, I'd be very concerned because that's a direct assault on a sitting committee.'' Now, when I see our friends who I know don't intend to undermine the economy of this country make decisions like they did yesterday, I am concerned that Mr. Dingell is very accurate, that we have empowered a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs, that they do not understand the full consequences of their actions. If we look at the Tunagate scandal where we have now exempted from all of America just one piece of America, SunKist and Del Monte as the parent corporation; every corporation in America, according to the minimum wage law, must, whether they can afford it or not, pay a new higher minimum wage. That is the potential of the majority. And yet they came in, the Speaker gave an exclusion to one company, one company based in her district. Now, we have heard a lot about the ending of special favors and ending the culture of corruption, and yet one of the first things we do is get a special interest. That does not speak so well for the full intent to follow through in this new beginning that we have been given. I would also point out that one of the greatest arguments made in the renegotiation, allowing government to negotiate the prices on medical prescription drugs, I would point out that one of the harshest criticisms of this bill yesterday, the energy bill, H.R. 6, was that government negotiators failed to get it right; that government negotiators failed to put the provisions in. They did not even ask the oil companies to put those provisions into the contracts, and yet it is the same type of negotiator who we are going to turn loose and say that now we are going to get better prices than what the private negotiators have. I simply don't believe it. I voted the other way. But we will see if our enthusiastic amateurs have gotten it right, or if we in fact do not increase revenues to the Treasury and in fact begin to limit access to prescription medications, which is what I have been told. For an example, we can go and look at the Veterans Prescription Drug List, and we see that I think the number is only 30 percent of the drugs that have been introduced in the last 5 to 10 years are actually on the list for veterans. They don't have the same access that people on the Medicare prescription drug program do. So that would be a terrible shame if, in their enthusiasm to create a better plan, our friends have instead created a worse plan. I am certainly willing to work with them and see, but in the meantime I do worry. Now, there is a piece of the legislation yesterday that we all must read. If you have access to your computers, you can always look up H.R. 6, and go to page 10. That is section 2, title II, and we are under the section 204 and we actually then begin a long series of pages and we come to page 10 under section 204, item C. And I will read this, because you as colleagues will find this stunning that it is actually in print. That transfers item C, line 4, page 10: A lessee shall not be eligible to obtain any economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease. So President Clinton's team had negotiated bad leases, and now our friends are saying that those bad leases must be stopped. We simply need to stop them. We don't need to unravel them. We don't need to go through the thorny process of making it right for both sides as we unravel. We simply are going to punish you by not allowing you to derive any economic benefit from this type of installation. I will tell you, that undermines the full faith and credit of the United States. If we cannot depend on the word of the United States, then what do we have? I would draw parallels to things that other countries have done. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez in 2001 raised the royalty rates from 1 percent to 16 percent just like that. Now, I will tell you as a business guy, if you know that a cost is going to be 1 percent or 16 percent, it is sort of irrelevant, but you must know that the cost is steady. When he raised those rates just at a single point with no ability to redesign these types of infrastructures, then he severely limited the interest of people to invest in that country, and certainly that is exactly what is happening. Foreign firms are already curtailing their investments in that country. So in Venezuela we see that there is an attempt to change existing contracts, very similar to the way that we changed yesterday on the floor of this House of Representatives, and it has affected the desire of people to invest in Venezuela. In Bolivia we have the same thing. The Bolivian government threatened to expel oil companies from that country in 2006 if they did not agree to new government terms on existing contracts. What has happened? I think you could forecast what has happened. What is done is that foreign investors are now beginning to reconsider whether or not they will actually be a part of the Bolivian economy or not. This is the thing that all shareholders, they will live with any certainty in life, but they will not live with uncertainty. And when we begin to change the contracts, they begin to pull their investments out and go to places where certainty is more of a potential. In Russia we have seen the same thing. Companies such as Shell, Exxon, BP have had valid oil and gas leases in Russia for years. President Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. By threatening to pull these leases, Shell was forced to give up assets that were worth billions of dollars. So we see in Russia this attempt to maneuver contracts, to manipulate contracts much as what we did yesterday, and the effects are very bad. Long term, Russia will not have people who are willing to come and invest in that country. In 2001, I had the opportunity to go as a company; my wife and I had a small company that dealt in oil and gas, repairs of oil wells. Russia was looking for such capability. So in 2001, I went with a team of people who did various different projects. We were the ones who did down hole repairs on oil wells. They took me, they showed me files of maybe 6,000 or 8,000 wells that were simple to correct, yet they in their technology in 2001 did not have access to even the basics that my father had seen here in the United States in the early 1950s when he was working in the same industry. My father retired from Exxon; his whole life was work. So when I went back, I showed him the videos of the equipment that was in Russia in 2001. He said, ``Son, in 1950 we were more advanced than what we are seeing here.'' When countries are unwilling to allow people to have stable returns, it doesn't have to be high returns, low returns, but there must be stability and there must be predictability. When countries do not allow that, there will be no investments. And so here Russia was with over 6,000 wells asking me in 2001 to come and fix because they did not have anyone that was capable of fixing them. I determined that the environment was very, very unsettling in Russia, so we actually opted not to become a part of the team that went there. There was a company that was about 10 times our size located in Abilene, Texas. They did go. That was about maybe a $50 million company, maybe a $100 million company. Within 2 years, they were selling everything at bankruptcy because the Russians, as you can predict, said, ``No. These assets are going to belong to us.'' So this contracting problem that was attempted to be cured yesterday in legislation I think is going to be, instead of a fix, is going to cause prices to be higher at the pump, investments to be less, and at the end of the day we are going to wonder if maybe we did not empower a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make commitments on behalf of the Federal Government. We shall see. I wish my friends well. I would say that I am not the only one who wonder about the contracts. Just day before yesterday the Washington Post had an editorial which declared that these elements that are included in the bill, the ones that begin to undo the contracts that we voted on yesterday and pushed by the majority in this House, the Washington Post declared those solutions to be ones that Russia and Bolivia would be proud of. Now, that is not exactly the new direction that the American people were promised as we came into this session. So I would encourage my colleagues to please open the process up. With debate in committee, these shortcomings in bills could have been brought out. The rough edges could have been knocked off the bills. Instead, we have been faced with bills that have no amendments allowed, no debate in committees, no consideration in committees. And so I worry that our friends are circumventing democracy.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. I would comment to my colleagues that a government depends on the confidence of the people. We make promises all the time, and we are expected to honor those promises if we are going to be a good government. We make promises to our seniors. We make promises to our veterans. We make promises to our young men and women who serve in the military that we will watch out for them, that we will take care of them. But like the gentleman says, we also make written contracts and written agreements. In this bill today, we have undermined the contracting process. We have declared that previous agreements simply must be renegotiated or you give up all future rights, and when we as a country choose to do that, not only do we offend and compromise our constitutional protection of private property rights, we undermine the confidence in our Nation and in our government. This is such a very serious step. It is a step that other Nations take very easily and yet is so significant, and yet this major step, this change in American policy was done without one single committee hearing. This bill that was in front of us today, H.R. 6, should have gone to four different committees. Instead, it went to none, not one committee hearing, and there were new provisions in this bill. There were new people on the floor who were elected just this year who have not heard the old provisions. I do not disagree with my colleagues who wanted to make us energy independent, but they failed in that task, and in the process, they have begun to undermine the confidence of this great Nation and the great reputation it has for treating fairly those people who invest and those people who trust the government. Who else will be undercut by actions from the floor of this House and the Democrat majority that is willing to take any step to try to enforce a new standard while declaring it to be a new way? Instead, it is an old, tried way that many other Nations have tried in the past. It is unfortunate to see now this Congress and this majority taking steps that Russia or Bolivia might have taken. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. PEARCE. I would thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this important item up tonight and will enjoy the opportunity to address it. First of all, as we went through the discussions today, we were told, I heard that it was not the intent to lower production. It was not the intent to harm the American consumer. It was not the intent to defraud the contracting process. But I would share with my colleagues that the same kind of language had to be used in the first item that came to the floor. That item, the majority placed an element into the new rules package which said that a Member, Delegate Or Resident Commissioner may not use personal funds, official funds or campaign funds for a flight on a nongovernmental airplane that is not licensed by the FAA to operate for compensation or hire. Now, when it came up for their own colleagues, they came to the floor and just declared in their comments that this was not the intent of the provision. But it is the effect of the provision, because they absolutely outlawed, they made it illegal to use even your own funds or campaign funds or MRA, that is the Congressional delegation funds, for private aircraft. So you had then Mr. Hastings of Florida say, I want to assure my colleagues that this is not the intent of this provision. Now, either we are bumping into people who were not quite prepared to present legislation to the floor, who are maybe getting bad advice, maybe thinking a little bit too quickly, maybe being driven by an agenda to bring stuff to the floor, to bring legislation to the floor that is a little bit narrowly constructed without the opportunity to go to committee. But let's take a look at what happened today in this energy bill. The first thing they declared was that energy companies are making so much profit that they must be declared immoral, that we must take back some of that money. We heard that over and over and over again today. But I would like to take a look at a chart here that begins to break down the cost of petroleum versus the cost of some of the other items take we have. The cost of oil, today, is $52 per barrel. The cost of bottled water is $409.50 per barrel. The cost of American beer is $448 per barrel. The cost of ice cream is $934 per barrel. Nail polish rings up an amazing $75,264 per barrel. So we have to ask how it is that we are declaring too much profit is being made? I heard today that oil companies, the top oil companies made $96 billion in profit. Yet when I look at Microsoft in just this past year, it was $36 billion just by itself. If we are going to make it wrong, if we are going to simply set up the class struggle between companies that make extraordinary profits, we should look at those that have no investment in large capital. When I look at the elements of producing oil that we are describing today, I see an investment in a rig that is almost like $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Now each one of these components that is made on this rig creates jobs, they create cash flow, they create profits for a whole range of companies. So when my colleagues were saying we need to go up on the taxes for these pieces of property, I think that the American consumer is smart enough to realize that investors just might choose not to put their money into this project. If that is the case, then we are going to find that our colleagues, in trying to assure energy independence, will, in fact, ensure energy dependence. Because in America, in the United States, we are driven further and further offshore, further and further down into the ground in order to produce oil. Saudi Arabia produces from a very shallow depth. Some of the wells in our district may be 20,000 feet deep. Saudi Arabia could be producing from as shallow as 1,000 feet deep. Saudi Arabia already has significant cost advantages over the United States production. We have tried to encourage this kind of drilling, this kind of production, to see that we have as much oil and gas as possible from internal sources. Now, our friends have said that they wanted to create incentives for the renewable fuels. Then they declared that the previous Congress for 12 years did nothing. I don't think they absolutely intended to mislead the American public on that, but they certainly did. Just because of the effects of the Energy 2005 Act that we passed from the Republican House, let me read a list of renewable projects that have already started or are already showing results. First of all, because of that legislation in 2005, 27 new ethanol plants have broken ground, 500 million gallons of new annual ethanol production is online already, 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol production are online by the end of 2006; 401 E-85 pumps, those are the pumps that can give you 85 percent ethanol if you pull up and have an engine that will burn ethanol; 25 new nuclear reactors are planned, 25,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020 if all 25 plants are built, 15 million households can be powered from the electricity by the 25 plants; 116,871 new hybrid vehicles have been purchased since January 1 of 2006, so the last calendar year, over 116,000 vehicles that are hybrids; there were 2,000 megawatts of new wind power. Many of those wind generators went into the second district of New Mexico that I represent. Many others lie just outside the district. Wind generators are not suitable for all parts of the country, but New Mexico is one of the few States that could be self-sufficient on wind energy. Very few States are capable of doing that; 493,000 homes will now be powered by new wind power. Three billion in economic activity is spurred by the wind power production. There is 7 billion pounds of CO2 offset by new wind power production, 1 million homes that can be powered by new wind power by the end of 2006, 100 percent increase in California and New Jersey and the applications for photovoltaic systems, 30 percent increase nationwide are solar, thermal collector installations. We had 15 new efficiency standards implemented for large appliances and 50,000 megawatts of energy saved by 2020 because of the 15 new efficiency standards. Now, our friends today said frequently that they were giving comments like clean energy policy starts today. Well, they are making the implication that nothing was done previously, and such is just not the case.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. One of the distressing things about the vote we took today was that not only were we setting up kind of an undisclosed fund, a slush fund for things that had already been done, the $8 billion referred to by my colleague from Tennessee was in the Energy Act of 2005 and was very specific. It had incentives for wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydrogen and nuclear. It had incentives for many of the renewable fuels. Those incentives are taking place and those incentives are causing developments to take place that are very significant. But the very damaging thing about this bill today was it violated a constitutional provision that prohibits the Federal Government from taking private property. That occurs on page 10 of the bill. Again, I would read the excerpts from the bill, line 4 on transfers. Basically the language says: ``A lessee,'' and some language in between, ``shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease for production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico'' unless they voluntarily back away from, agree to undo these contracts written in full faith. If you can imagine an investor, or even a stockholder, having to walk away from an investment like this because the government changed its standards, the government changed the contracting basis, you would understand then why The Washington Post said: ``This House bill would break the deadlock,'' meaning the deadlock in this contracting process that has been so messed up. ``The House would break this deadlock by imposing heavy penalties,'' that is the heavy penalty of walking away from that investment without economic return, ``on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government. ``This heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia and other countries that have been criticized for tearing up revenue sharing agreements with private energy companies.'' I would like to share with my colleagues, before I yield back, the things that this Washington Post is referring to. For instance, in Venezuela in 2006, Hugo Chavez caused royalty rates to be increased from 1 percent to 16 percent without renegotiation. In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not agree had their assets nationalized. Now, we are not nationalizing these assets, but we are saying you have to sacrifice any potential to make economic benefit from that. That does not seem American. It does not seem like the way that we want to run business in this country, and yet it is what the majority presented to us today. They said, well that is an unintended consequence, which brings me back to my initial point, that maybe they just should have sent these things to committee before they came to the floor with such outlandish provisions. Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is very similar to what this language in this bill did. If you don't agree to the terms in the language here, then you do not get to make economic impact from an investment such as this. In May of 2006, President Evo Morales in Bolivia suspended negotiations and nationalized his country's energy industry. These actions were done for short-term increases in revenue from taxes and royalties, but foreign investors have canceled almost new projects, which will likely lead to massive economic problems in the future. Now, if they are going to cancel economic projects in Bolivia because of the overturn of existing contracts, I will guarantee you that they will do the same in the United States, and they will cancel future contracts. Russia found the same thing. President Putin made firms agree to change existing leases that had been in existence for several years. He threatened to pull these leases for suspect reasons. Now he is willing to hold all of Europe hostage as he takes these nationalized assets. I will tell you that companies will not invest in Russia in the energy business in the future. These are all problems that this bill today that was passed off the floor of the House of Representatives are going to cause. So if my colleague would give me one more second, we would run through a chart showing what American consumers can expect from this bill. First, it sends American manufacturing jobs overseas. The second thing that it does is lower domestic energy production, so we are going to use more foreign oil, not less. It is going to provide higher prices at the pump, $3, $4, $5. Hugo Chavez, the Iranian Government and the Russian Government get the handouts at the expense of the American consumer. American voters need to understand what has occurred in the House of Representatives today. I think that they are going to rise up when they begin to see the effects on jobs, when they see the effects at the pump, and when they see that the contractual basis, the full faith and credit of the United States, has been undermined by this piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If he has additional time, I have other comments. But I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this important issue up.

Mr. PEARCE. That is a great point. Let me make one additional comment. The very amusing thing is the people that are so critical of the contracting process, the negotiation process, are exactly the same people that said we should trust the Federal Government, who negotiated so badly here, to negotiate in good faith on our prescription drugs. I will tell you, it is not congruent. It does not fit any sense of logic that I understand.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate that clarification from the gentleman.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out that the conservation fee in this bill, contrary to the testimony we are hearing, applies to all leases, according to the language in the bill, and that clarification is a very important distinction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate after the other committees have used their time.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I would inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker and fellow House Members, let's take a look at what we are doing here today. The Democrats say that they are reducing America's dependence on oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative resources. Both goals, I agree, are admirable. In the process, they are trying to unravel a very thorny problem of contracts that were badly negotiated by the Clinton administration, contracts that the Clinton administration made no attempt to remedy. But let's look at what is actually occurring. In title I, we are penalizing American oil and gas companies and rewarding foreign companies by taxing them differently. That is, we are going to favor foreign jobs and foreign oil over domestic jobs and domestic oil. The second thing we are doing is charging a conservation fee on U.S.- produced oil while protecting foreign oil from this tax. Now, again, this is $9. If I could get the House to focus on the percentages for just a moment. If $9 is added on top of the $70 charged to a production company that is making $70 a barrel, that is about 12.8 percent. But already the price of oil has fallen to about $52. And if $9 is assessed into a $50- a-barrel revenue stream, then it is 18 percent. But what happens if the price of oil falls to $30? I would remind my constituents that as little as 3\1/2\ years ago the price of oil was actually at $20. And there, you now have a fee on top of the taxes that is 45 percent. A 45 percent fee will begin to move exploration away from this Nation. In 1999 and 2000, I was in an oil and gas company that did repairs for oil and gas wells. The price of oil fell to $6. At that point, our fee is going to be 150 percent. This bill is extraordinarily prescriptive in declaring not a percent, but instead a fixed fee. It disadvantaged tremendously the production of oil and gas. But probably the most serious consequence of this bill is where, on page 10, it describes that ``a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease.'' This is the piece of the bill that The Washington Post declares to be heavy handed, the heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts, a process that would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia. In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not agree had their assets nationalized. This bill does not nationalize, but it prohibits firms who do not agree from participating in future contracts. It is a very serious contractual problem. Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is extraordinarily close to what we are doing in this bill. What Bolivia did has caused investors to begin to take their investments out of Bolivia. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin wants to gain complete control, and so he has begun to renegotiate with companies like Shell, Exxon and BP, who have held valid oil leases in Russia for several years. Mr. Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. That is exactly the language contained in this bill. I do not think it is the intent of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be this heavy handed. This bill would have been presented differently if it had been sent to committee, if it had been debated in committee and if amendments had been allowed. My request is that we vote ``no'' on this bill and we send it back to the committee where we can get a good hearing to take the very troublesome parts of this bill, troublesome parts which The Washington Post describe as heavy handed and the sort of thing that you would expect in Russia and Bolivia. In this country, we want an environment that causes people to go out and invest. We want people to create jobs and to create a better standard of living. But this bill begins to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States by changing the contractual basis. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. I am just going to reserve my 5 minutes of debate time until after the next two committees have gone.

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and salute my colleagues for working at a concept really that we all agree on: Energy independence. I refer only to the second title in these comments, where I oppose the rule which says there will be no amendments. Title II is the one where the Washington Post says ``This House bill would break its deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.'' They go on to say, ``This heavy handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.'' Let's look at just a couple of things that have occurred recently. In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated private oil firms to cooperate with new contractual changes, much as we are doing in section 2. The investment from foreign firms, which is vital for Chavez's economic plan to succeed, are already being curtailed due to the uncertain investment environment. In 2006, Bolivia threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new terms on existing contracts. These actions were done for short-term increases in revenue, yet they are leading to massive economic problems in the country through the oil and gas industry. Also, in Russia, 2006, companies such as Shell, Exxon, and BP have held valid oil and gas leases for years, yet Putin has declared that the agencies are going to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. In section 2, title II, we have those same sorts of heavy handed approaches that the Washington Post editorial complains about. Our colleagues have said that President Bush refused to get serious. If getting serious is undermining the full faith and credit of this government, then I will agree that President Bush failed to get serious. I had also heard a comment from one of my distinguished colleagues on the other side that this agenda includes things that the minority would not do, and I will agree the minority would not do those things which undermine the contractual basis of this government. I think this bill should be back in committee to have the hearing and the amendments that would occur, because you know that these things are not valid and will not promote more production from U.S. companies but less.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will join with the distinguished chairman in bringing actions to terminate employees who are incompetent in the Interior Department and bring legal malpractice actions against those firms negotiating for the U.S. Government and creating the problems. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the distinguished and honorable gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a couple of points up on this in response to the gentleman who was just making the points. First of all, we talk about the $440 million that the head of Exxon makes. If we divide out the numbers of millions and billions of dollars that Exxon pays out to shareholders and compare it to Tiger Woods, for instance, Tiger Woods made $25,181 a stroke. Shaquille O'Neal made $18,300 per minute that he played. A-Rod made $180,000 per run batted in. And the people who provide gasoline and oil at the price, $3 for gasoline, you will pay more than $3 for this fingernail polish that comes out to $25,000 per bottle. This bottled water is over $400 per barrel, and it does not require an investment in an operation like this. These offshore platforms are over $1 billion investment, and you are saying that oil is overpriced and we are gouging the American consumers. Next, you should go after bottled water and after fingernail polish because this is $25,000 per barrel. We need to understand that it takes a lot of investment to put gas in the pumps. It cannot be done. I have heard today that we are going to provide wave energy. Wave energy on our F-16s, I can just imagine it now. The investments to power this Nation are extraordinarily high, and we are not overcompensating the companies that do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes on this new energy policy for the Nation that some are calling the Hugo Chavez Competitive Rewards Advantage Program to Mr. Shimkus from Illinois. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I object.