Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. King. I appreciate the work that you're doing on this issue on the eve of 9/11. It behooves us all to remember exactly what happened. It behooves us all to remember the loss of that 1 day, and like my friend from Georgia says, over $2 trillion in loss from America's asset base that day, and even worse, the 3,000 lives that were lost. I went to Iraq on Thursday evening. We left after votes on Thursday, flew all night long, and ended up in Iraq on Saturday and Sunday. And we spent the night in Baghdad on Saturday night and Sunday visiting with the troops and visiting with Iraqis. I was struck by the cautious optimism that General Petraeus related to us today, a very cautious optimism that the trend lines are favorable, that we're seeing some lessening of violence, and that's the sort of things that I found there from the troops in the country. I wanted to visit with our soldiers one on one. I had the opportunity to ride into Baghdad with troops who were going for the first time. I sat across from a Captain Serrano from Chicago and was able to talk to her about the 2-year-old daughter that waits at home for her. Her husband, who is engaged in going through sheriff's training to hopefully work for the sheriff's department there. And we're asking the sacrifice of young men and women daily to be there and stand in the gap to stand between the terrorists and ourselves. I have one of my friends who says, I hear America is at war. He said, America is not at war, America is at the mall, our military is at war. I think if we've made a mistake since 9/11, it's in failing to accept our responsibility individually, every single one of us, our responsibility to be engaged in this problem, because we are literally fighting for the future of freedom throughout the world. The terrorists who hate us hate our way of life. They hate our freedoms. They hate the films that come out from the West. They think they're corrupting their young people. They think that our society is decadent and that we're corrupting their cultures, so they simply want to annihilate us. That's the difference between a democracy or a republic and the tyrannical states of radical jihad that say that we will annihilate the West and we will annihilate America and Americans. I remember, on this eve of 9/11, President Bush's three goals. It was very simple. He said, first of all, if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist. But then he said we're going to do three things: We're going to uproot the terrorist training camps that exist throughout the Arab world. We're going to stop the training and the production of new radicals. The second thing he said is we're going to stop the funds that flow from supposedly legitimate compassionate organizations when actually they're funding terrorists. So we're going to uproot the training camps, we're going to stop the funding of terrorists, and finally, we're going to take the fight to the terrorists. Now, there are many on the left who say that Iraq is not about the terrorists. The terrorists are coming in from Syria, they're coming in from around the world, they're coming in from Iran. This is the site where we are fighting terrorists. Now, maybe it began that way, maybe it didn't begin that way, but it's the way it is now. And if we walk away from that country, the general consensus is that Iraq will fall within days to the terrorists, to the terrorist state of Iran. After Iraq falls, we're going to see difficulties in Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar. And pretty soon you can see that every one of our friends in the Arab world is at risk. And there are people who ask me, well, how could those countries fall? Just remember back to 1979 when the shah of Iran was making great progress in westernizing that country, and in a matter of days was thrown from power, his whole government collapsed. We stood by, President Jimmy Carter stood by and did not lift a finger for our friends. And that's exactly how the falls will occur at this state. The difference is that now we import over 60 percent of our oil, and most of it comes from the Middle East. If those countries fall, the terrorists have said they're going to cut the supply of oil off to the world. They will plunge the world economy into chaos. And that's how they're going to create the economic destruction of the United States and of the West. I went to Israel earlier this year. They said if you leave Iraq, you will allow us to fall, because they saw the same scenario that I'm repeating, that all of our friends in the Middle East will fall, and then ultimately Israel says ``we will fall.'' Now, my personal belief is that Israel is our first line of defense against terrorists. They've been fighting since their inception against radical jihads in the Middle East. They are our first line of defense, and if they fall, what calamity and what terrors await for us in this country? There are many who say that it's just a fabrication, that it's not true, and yet we see the signs all around us. As I visited with our troops in Iraq over this past weekend, I conveyed one message, that we thank you. We thank you for your service and we thank you for your sacrifice. We thank you for serving your country honorably, and we thank you for serving your country well. As the gentleman from Iowa mentioned, this is one of the messages of General Petraeus, that this may be the best military the United States has ever had. I do not believe the terrorists can win. I do believe that there are those in this Congress and those in this country who can cause this magnificent military to fail. And if they fail, I don't know where the hope for humanity comes. I don't see any other country in the world willing to fight for freedom and to fight to resist the radical jihad that threatens us all; to fight to resist and to fight to retaliate from circumstances like 9/11/01. So that's what we're doing today is remembering those events 6 years ago, remembering what our responses were and what our anger was on that evening as we contemplated the events of the day. Both sides, Democrat or Republican, in those days were of the same mind, that we need to get to the terrorists before they get to us. I'm not sure where we came off of the rails and where we've lost so much consensus. It's not good for the United States and it's not good for the world because we're still in a very difficult circumstance fighting a very difficult battle, one that General Petraeus today said is going to be awfully hard. It's going to be a long struggle, and it's a struggle that will be up and down. He believes our young military men and women are sufficient to the task. I do also. So I would yield back to the gentleman from Iowa by saying thanks to our troops. I hope that we all keep them in our thoughts and prayers. God bless you to the troops, and God bless America. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to offer support for H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act. Chairman Frank has described it very well. Basically, we are trying to see that the plight of Native Americans in their housing can be improved. It is basically fairly simple. As home to many Native American tribes, New Mexico sees this problem up close. The lack of standard housing, the availability of substandard housing, the lack of economic development opportunities, the lack of infrastructure such as water and wastewater treatment facilities all continue to plague people who are trying to make the tribal grounds their home and their place of habitation. So I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill and appreciate the hard work of Representative Kildee, Chairman Frank, and Chairwoman Waters in drafting a bill that begins to address these problems. One of the things that I think is most important is the flexibility and self-determination that begins to work its way into the legislation. Washington has never been the right place to make decisions for either local, State, or tribal governments, and in this bill we begin to send more of that autonomy, to send more of the decision-making power back to the tribes, which I think is an excellent opportunity for them to begin to find their way to self-sufficiency. We have had one of my good friends come and testify on the bill. That was the president of the Mescalero Apaches, Mark Chino, who came here during the Financial Services Committee's consideration of the bill and gave his insights on why the program is needed. And, again, I would just like to commend each one of the tribal leaders throughout not only New Mexico but throughout this country for really doing their job to begin to see that tribes deal with the problems that face them, not waiting for the Federal Government to come around and not waiting for BIA, not waiting for any of the agencies. And this bill, in its block grant program, begins to do that. Another one of the significant things of this bill is that it allows tribes to take loans out, to incur indebtedness, to issue bonds in order to get infrastructure on the tribal grounds. I know that the Mescaleros do not have their own wastewater treatment facility. They instead work with the local communities of Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs to deal with the wastewater treatment. But as tribes across the country are allowed to incur indebtedness for these solutions, then I think that is going to be extraordinarily important. Some of the tribes have used their housing money, for instance, to go to FEMA where many of the trailers that were bought and put there for Hurricane Katrina victims ended up not being needed or used, and different tribes, which the Mescaleros were, I think, the first in the Nation to go take advantage of some of those trailers, move them into their native grounds. And it represents a significant improvement over what some of the families already had. So we are beginning to see those roots and those seeds of self-determination already make a difference in the lives of Native Americans. And with this reauthorization, we will be able to continue to see those seeds of local progress, local input becoming the way that we do business. I support the bill and look forward to the discussion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would claim time in opposition, though I may not speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. While NAHASDA continues the great practice of giving tribes more flexibility to develop housing, I believe that we can do more. We all know that economic development and infrastructure needs are acute in Indian Country. My amendment allows Native Americans to receive the same opportunity for economic development that States, cities and other units of local government across the United States enjoy without an increase in direct appropriations. Representative Renzi from Arizona, a good friend, has similar stand- alone legislation, the Tribal Economic Development and Infrastructure Support Act of 2007. I appreciate his hard work on this important issue. Currently, communities that receive direct funding from the Community Development Block Grant program may borrow or issue bonded debt for up to five times their actual CDBG allocation. This is the section 108 loan guarantee program and it encourages economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development projects. Title 6 of NAHASDA is similar to the section 108 statute and allows tribes to borrow or issue bonded debt up to five times their annual NAHASDA allocation for housing purposes only. The title VI program has been underutilized in part because the eligible projects are limited to low-income activities that do not generate sufficient income to pay back these loans. My amendment gives to tribes the same access to vital economic and infrastructure resources that non-tribal communities currently use. Specifically, my amendment authorizes a demonstration program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide for guarantees to loans for housing-related economic infrastructure and development on tribal lands. The demonstration project embodied in this bill will build not only better neighborhoods, but also build the economic infrastructure to support those communities, especially in our most rural and impoverished sections of America. The demonstration program is limited, so that at least half of the title VI program authority will remain exclusively for housing. Also, in order to be approved by the Secretary, an applicant must demonstrate that 70 percent of the benefit of the proposed projects will go to the low-income Indian families on Indian reservations and other tribal areas. This is similar to the CDBG program which requires that 70 percent of a project's benefit be for low- and moderate-income families. Nothing in this amendment changes the use of appropriated funds, but it will encourage private money from banks or bond investors to be used for economic development purposes. In June, I visited the Pueblo of Zuni, where it rained and snowed, leaving standing, muddy water throughout the community. Most of the streets in the historic plaza do not have gutters to control water runoff, nor do the roofs of most houses have the gutters. The water began to flow and residents were literally surrounding their homes with bath towels to absorb the melting snow and to prevent their homes from being flooded. This is an example where NAHASDA dollars should be eligible for infrastructure to help these low-income families build gutters in their neighborhoods and protect their homes. My amendment will help Native Americans build stronger, better communities all across America by encouraging economic development. I believe this is the right step to help Indian Country build and improve their communities. I hope that you will join me in supporting this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman for his amendment. This is the same amendment that was offered to a freestanding piece of legislation that was offered in the Financial Services Committee. At that point, I commended the gentleman, Mr. Watt, for his work on justice, equality and fairness, and recognize that. I also favor loud and extremely clear messages, and this language is that. My concern on the day that we accepted this amendment as a part of our freestanding bill was that the underlying bill addresses some of the most needy, most impoverished rural areas in our Nation, and I would just hate for some of those areas to be disadvantaged simply because they are caught in this particular fight. There is pending litigation on the subject. And I wonder if it would not be better for us to let that litigation run its course. There is always opportunity for us, as a freestanding body, to come back and address this issue with legislation if it does not clear up in the court case. So, again, I compliment the gentleman for the clear and concise message that he is delivering. I am not opposed to the message. In fact, I support the message of justice and fairness and equality, but would continue to wonder out loud if this is the proper vehicle. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Boren to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would compliment the gentleman from Michigan for his work on this legislation. He has been tireless in his support of and the working of the legislation to get it to this point on the floor. In my district we have several tribes, including Laguna, Acoma, Zuni, Mescalero, Isleta, the Ramah Navajo chapter, Tohajiilee Navajo chapter and the Alamo Navajo chapter, and each are faced with different difficulties. That's the reason that the flexibility is so important that is offered in this legislation. Flexibility and autonomy are the beginning points, and accountability then is kind of the finishing point. Given the opportunity to solve their own problems, given the resources to solve their problems holds the tribes accountable. And I have not found one that finds this distressing in any way. Too often I think that the Federal Government has been looked at as the caretaker of entire cultures, and literally that's not possible that the caretaker of the culture has to be the cultural members themselves. We see significant advances and capabilities in these areas. And, again, I am happy to be a part of this particular effort in this particular extension of flexibility and accountability.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his work on this bill. The Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Reauthorization is actually quite a bipartisan effort in the Financial Services Committee. We had Representative Waters, Chairman Frank, myself, and Mr. Kildee working on the bill. Basically, we're faced in many of the States with Indian tribes with large Indian populations. We are faced with the problem of consistent high unemployment, consistent homelessness, substandard housing, infrastructure that is not developed. In New Mexico, I've seen Native American homes which consist of cardboard, corrugated tin, bare boards, no insulation, and I've seen where toilets simply flush out the bottom of the trailer out onto the ground with no sewage infrastructure. And so what I began to do when I first came to Congress is sit down and meet with the tribal leaders. We formed not only a working relationship but a strong friendship as we tried to wrestle with these problems in New Mexico, as we began to wrestle with the problems of self-determination, the problems of self-sufficiency, the problems of employment of tribal members. They understand there's a cultural problem, as well as a systemic economic problem; but we have committed ourselves together to work one issue at a time, side by side, to accomplish what we can. So when we come to this housing problem, this reauthorization, and I understand my friend from Texas and in his objections, and do not disagree with those, but at some point, I myself am faced with a pragmatic decision about just what can we do and what are we going to do. So I find that the greater discretion that's allowed in this language, the greater flexibility that is allowed to the Native Americans to begin to make their own decisions, and we've had frank, straightforward discussions about accountability, about the needs of these funds to be measured and where they go and what they accomplish, and never do I find them to be wary of this accountability. It's just that they are trying to get their feet underneath them to try to solve the problems on their tribal grounds. And so I come to the floor to support the reauthorization and several of the underlying amendments that will come up on that. One of the things that this bill does is begin to set up block grant programs to where the tribes can take out loans for infrastructure, clean water, healthy drinking water, ways to dispose of raw sewage. Those are things that really affect every tribe, and not many of them have very good solutions. Many in New Mexico are a long way away from the urban centers where the funds are available to create sewage treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants; and so it's an important addition to this bill that we allow them that flexibility and that ability to create the loan programs, much like the CDBG program which affects small communities, rural communities throughout New Mexico. So as we begin to look at this reauthorization again, I would come to the floor in support of that and in support of the idea that we must begin to pay attention to the very desperate needs that exist on many of the tribal grounds throughout this country; and as we do that, I think that we'll find when housing begins to stabilize, then those cultures begin to stabilize because homeownership is one of the basic building blocks of a society, that ability to have some place where you can retreat and be away from the cares of the world with the family structure gathered around. So it would work well. The idea of affordable housing is one that is extraordinarily important in all of New Mexico. We have a very low per capita income, and so affordable housing is important in every community but especially in our Native American communities, and the affordable housing is addressed here in this reauthorization, too. So understanding the objection of my friend from Texas, I would still rise in support of the underlying legislation of this rule.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague Representative Emanuel Cleaver, to introduce innovative legislation to help millions of Americans save for their futures and at the same time lead to a healthier America. This bill, the Americans Saving Through Health Research Bonds Act of 2007, would establish a new series of U.S. Savings bonds for individuals, where a small portion of the return would be sent directly to the National Institutes of Health to fund medical research. Under this bill, when an individual redeems a ``Healthy Bond'', rather than taxing the interest earned, 10 percent would be sent to the NIH Institute of their choice for medical research. Like the successful semi-postal fundraising stamp program, these funds will supplement the work done at NIH researching cures for the diseases which plague mankind. Let me show you how this bill works. In FY2006, the Treasury Department redeemed $14.5 billion in bonds, of which $7.9 billion was payments on interest. If 20 percent of those had been Health Research Bonds instead, that would have generated $158 million in new National Institutes of Health money. If only 5 percent had been Health Research Bonds, that would have generated $39.5 million in new NIH funding. The NIH provides top-notch researchers nationwide with the support they need to conduct cutting-edge medical research. This bill would give the American people the option to invest their own stake in the important breakthroughs being made in today's medical research. But the bright future open to us by funding increased health care research is not the only concern this bill would address. In 1982, the average American saved 9.75 percent of his income. Twenty-five (25) years later, the shift from using credit to buy asset- building items like homes to using credit to improve one's lifestyle has drastically reduced the rate of savings in America to almost negative one percent. Madam Speaker, the future is unpredictable enough. No one should have to learn the hard way that long-term savings and investment are necessary for retirement. Quality of life begins with financial stability. We must give our constituents the tools they need to ensure that their financial security remains secure in the future. When Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, gave his report on the state of the U.S. economy to the House Financial Services Committee in February, he emphasized the need to make sure more individuals have access to retirement and private savings plans. Doing so, he said, would ensure that ``we help people finance a reasonable retirement.'' As people live longer and retire earlier, the costs of retirement are growing. Although more than half of Americans save and invest in the private market, only 1 in 4 people believe they have saved enough for retirement. Savings bonds are a proven, reliable, and secure source of future income for Americans. Today, Americans face an array of financial choices, whether they be monthly budgeting, planning for retirement, saving for college or purchasing a home. Under the weight of these choices many people do not know where to begin saving. Madam Speaker, my legislation would help people to build assets that will meet a variety of needs over the course of their lives. What's more, this bill piggy-backs on the long-held American tradition of allowing individuals to attend to their personal financial health yet, in the spirit that makes our country so great, would give Americans the opportunity to do some good in the process. The small percentage of the return that would go to NIH will give Americans their own reward for funding health research. NIH's 27 Institutes and Centers have been at forefront of some of our Nation's most significant medical discoveries, and in 2006 it was responsible for nearly one-third of the funding received by U.S. medical research. Moreover, the NIH has the flexibility and resources to perform a wide array of disease research, from the rarest genetic condition to the common cold. In partnering on this important legislation with a number of leading medical groups, I have garnered support from some of America's most respected minds in health care. Upon introduction this legislation is endorsed by the American Association of Medical Colleges. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this bill would help our constituents feel at ease knowing that they are saving for their futures on more than one front. As well as securing their financial future, they will know that the money that goes to NIH for medical research will have a lasting impact on their children, grandchildren, and generations to follow. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to create a partnership between saving for future retirement and fighting disease.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the terrible and destructive drug called Methamphetamine, or meth as it is more commonly known. Meth is destroying our kids, families and communities all over the country. The meth scourge is particularly devastating in my district, the 2nd district of New Mexico. Over the past year and a half, I have conducted over 50 town hall, school, church and community meth awareness visits. We all have a responsibility to educate our communities, parents, teachers and families about the dangers of this drug. Prevention, education and support of our law enforcement personnel are fundamental to fighting meth. However, the fight cannot stop there. We must provide those individuals who are addicted to meth the best available treatment. We must do everything we can to ensure that treatment centers and programs that are equipped with the best practices and methods to ensure long- term success for people fighting to be free of this terrible addictive drug. Unfortunately, very little is understood in the treatment community about the Best Practices for treating this addiction. I have spent the past few months talking to the treatment professionals throughout my district. Repeatedly I heard that no one knows what the best practices are or what tools are needed for treating meth addiction. While there are successful programs, there is no uniform understanding of the best methods to ensure long term success. Research on treating this addiction must be undertaken in order to provide our treatment professionals, doctors and recovering addicts with the best possible chance for success. To achieve that goal and give our treatment professionals the tools they need I am introducing the ``Methamphetamine Best Practices Act of 2007'' to direct the National Institute of Health to conduct a survey of research available to find the best practices for treating a methamphetamine addiction. In addition, I am asking NIH to report to Congress this information and tell us what other research may be necessary. It is imperative that we equip our treatment centers and communities with the necessary information to be successful in combating methamphetamines. Madam Speaker, we cannot stop meth use here in Congress. We can, however, give our communities the tools to win this fight. This legislation today will give our treatment professionals another weapon in their arsenal to fight meth in our communities. I want to thank my colleagues Representatives Leonard Boswell, Zach Wamp, Darlene Hooley, and Michael Michaud for joining me as original cosponsors of this effort. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3221. I rise in strong opposition to the method and strategy promoted in this bill, which suggests that it is a new direction towards energy security. I don't oppose the bill because it doesn't include any new energy. I can tolerate a bill that doesn't include any new energy, and this one doesn't. But this bill is worse than that. It takes domestic energy supplies away. At this time of record energy prices, this bill limits our domestic production. This is a San Francisco energy policy that will force prices higher, will increase our dependence on oil from Venezuela and Iran, and it will send even more of our American jobs overseas. The bill is deaf to every signal in this country and around the world regarding energy prices. Listening is one of the most important skills of a policymaker. I urge the Members of this House to please listen to the signals surrounding us. Oil shattered another record this week, reaching $78.77 per barrel during the trading day. This ``Wrong Direction'' bill cuts off 2 trillion barrels of American oil from oil shale resources. Energy Secretary Bodman called on world producers today to boost oil supply of world oil because the U.S. economy is in a ``danger zone.'' This ``Wrong Direction'' bill cuts off 10 billion barrels of oil from our own National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. On one hand, the Independent System Operator of New England released a study today that states that New England's energy rates are among the highest in the Nation and they will continue to depend almost entirely on the price of natural gas. So New England's energy depends on the supply of natural gas, no matter what policies State leaders adopt for conserving energy. On the other hand, this ``Wrong Direction'' bill cuts off 18 percent in Federal onshore natural gas supply by gutting the categorical exclusions provisions from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In another move to use energy as a political weapon, Russia announced this week that it would again cut off Belarus from natural gas supplies. At the same time, Russia is putting a flag on the North Pole so that it might drill and continue to feed its hungry energy appetite. Meanwhile, this ``Wrong Direction'' bill plays 11th hour games and cuts off critical domestic natural gas supplies from the Colorado Roan Plateau. The Roan has enough natural gas to power 4 million homes for more than 20 years. Venezuela announced this week they are coordinating with the Cubans to drill offshore Florida. China is already working with Cuba to drill off the shore of Florida. And yet we do not harness any of this energy for our own purposes. Instead, we allow the Chinese to become even more dominant in the world. The bill will prohibit government agencies from working together. Right now, BLM, the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers all work together in pilot offices that make common sense to the American taxpayer. Yet this bill stops them. Dow Chemical announced recent plans to build a $22 billion chemical facility in Saudi Arabia because natural gas supplies are too tight in this country. This ``Wrong Direction'' bill breaches contracts with natural gas producers. Again, this bill simply does not produce any new energy, but, worse, it affects the supply of energy we currently have, diminishing those. It is going to put a double squeeze on our economy. Mr. Chairman, this is not the best new direction. It is a new direction for the country. It is the wrong direction. I oppose the bill strongly.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the desires of our ranking member on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill of that amendment offers us clear choices on the environment. It lays before us the kind of choices, the kind of development we should support. My Republican colleagues and I believe that we should support and expand our domestic energy supply. This picture is a picture of American energy. This offshore rig produces between 100,000 and 150,000 barrels of oil a day from America's Outer Continental Shelf. The production is clean, with a limited impact on the surrounding ocean. The impact it has causes the creation of a new column of ocean life on the legs of the platform. During Katrina, these did not spill one drop of oil, not one drop, in one of the worst hurricanes in American history. I believe that this clean development is what we should produce more of. That is why I am going to vote for this bill. Many of our friends see life differently. They are going to say that this is not the way to produce. To quote my friend from New York, ``Let us import as much energy as we possibly can.'' Now, I have traveled overseas and I have looked at oil production overseas. When they say, let's import as much as we can, some of that production comes from places like this, with absolutely no environmental standards. And we are going to export our problems, export the environmental contamination from this country to others, all in the guise of making ourselves energy independent. Many in the majority of Congress is going to vote today, and I would recommend that we very carefully think about the problems that we are going to export and think about that tremendous energy industry that has developed here and is a model for the rest of the world. I thank the ranking member for yielding time and thank the chairman, and appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate congressional Republicans for acting to protect Americans. Last week we passed, and yesterday the President signed, legislation protecting Americans who in good faith report suspicious terrorist activities. Conservatives successfully fought the liberal leadership of this House to pass the John Doe protection legislation. On August 1, after the House and Senate acted, the lawyer for the six Muslim clerics who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight last November amended their lawsuit to remove John Doe passengers from the lawsuit. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means that the responsible Americans who report suspicious behavior and who will report suspicious behavior in the future no longer have the threat of a lawsuit hanging over their head. This legislation is already making Americans safer. It means that we can tell Americans that if they see something, they should report it. Our Founding Fathers envisioned it thus. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Americans should know that Republicans in Congress are standing behind the vigilant citizens and saying, ``I am John Doe.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this unduly restrictive rule. I had two amendments that I was prepared to offer to this legislation, neither of which will be considered here today. They were pretty simple, really. My first amendment would have increased funding for the Wildlife Services by $500,000 to support the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program in New Mexico and Arizona. This program is teetering on the edge of failure. My attempt to add a modest amount of additional funding to manage dangerous problem wolves was rejected by the majority. My second amendment was an attempt to bring protections to the endangered wolves in the Northeast United States, where many in the conservation community believe they are being killed by Wildlife Services. My amendments were filed in a timely fashion. The committee was alerted to my intentions all along. Yet this is the result of the rule that we have before us today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule be amended to allow me to offer my two amendments which have been placed at the desk, which were also filed with the Rules Committee, were provided to the Appropriations Committee and are critically important to my constituents in New Mexico.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize R.L. Posey on his 80th birthday. Although simply making it to his 80th birthday is truly a milestone, this has not been Mr. Posey's only accomplishment; throughout his life he has taken on one challenge after another and refused to quit until the job was done. R.L. was brought into the world on August 21, 1927, in Alamogordo, NM. After attending grade school and graduating from Cloudcroft High School, R.L. answered the call to duty, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Army. Second Lieutenant Posey served with the 384th Ordinance Tank Maintenance Company from February 22, 1946 to March 25, 1947. R.L. later attended New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts where he received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering. After returning home to New Mexico, he met and later married his wife Patty, in June of 1949. During their 58 years of marriage, R.L and Patty have brought up a wonderful, loving family of six. His family has since grown up and he now has 21 grandchildren and 12 great grandchildren. After starting and raising his family R.L. returned to service and faithfully served in the civil service. He was appointed director of safety at the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM. R.L retired from his position and now spends ample amounts of time with his family and friends. Aside from work Mr. Posey is an activist in his community, focusing on the environment and land issues. Adventurer is not quite the word to describe Mr. Posey; servant and community leader is more his style. Whether serving as a husband to his wife, a father to his children, an activist in his community, as director of safety or an officer in the U.S. Army, R.L. has continuously placed the welfare of others before his own. Congratulations R.L, and happy birthday.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. In its current form, I am.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for his hard work on this issue. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. We're good friends. And all three of us come from the West, where we are very familiar with public ownership of land. One of the things that really concerns us most about the threat of condemnation and about the way that home owners, private property owners would be affected is shown in this chart that I have here. The management plan would put a cap on impervious services, and those services could not be paved. If the road to your house washes out, then you simply can't do it. Now, there are all sorts of takings that the Federal Government can do, and this is one, where they simply won't allow you to fix your property up or fix the roads leading to your property. So you would lose value because you could not own a house and sell a house that has a road leading to it that has washed out. You cannot add a room to your home; so feasibly we could say that we are limiting procreation. If you have another kid, you can't build a room in the back to accommodate them. You can't go build on your property if you have not already built there. You can't go in and build. The private land is impacted seriously. But beyond that is there a real concern? Do we have a concern for the public taking of private lands and making it theirs? Are there examples in our history as a Nation where we maybe have extended the power of a Federal Government, a central government that is too strong, a central government that begins to overburden and outweigh and out muscle the citizens? If so, then it is imperative that we give voice to those citizens who have no other voice, who have been left out completely, who are going to be marginalized by these management plans. I think that we do have a Federal Government that will extend too far, and I think that we have a concern here. Now, it is unfortunate that we have come to this point because the underlying bill, the one that says we would like to preserve a wild and scenic river, is one that there is almost no discussion about. The entire discussion is about private property rights, that constitutional right that gives us each our place to retreat to in the evening without the government's coming in and taking either part of its value or simply confiscating the whole thing. Now, confiscation is a language that seems abrupt, that seems too harsh, that we really do not face that sort of circumstance today in this country. I would tell you that, as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee last year, we heard testimony from the Franciscan Friars of Atonement in New York. That group had fought the National Park Service for decades, saying don't take our land. But through eminent domain, the Federal Park Service had continued to put pressure. Again, it was the threat of what they could do that was used as the hammer. So we find ourselves now with this bill, which the ranking member adequately points out that there is an underlying bill that contains language that nothing contained in this section shall preclude the use of condemnation. It is a process that has been used frequently. I was recently in Shenandoah National Park, and you would think that Shenandoah is just a great location, and it is. But the underlying story is one that is told right now in the Visitors Center in Shenandoah, and it is about the confiscation, about moving, it seems to me, about 4,000 families out of their homes so that that could be a big park area. We did not want those inconvenient people living there; so we simply moved them out for their own good. We moved them to much better places regardless if they wanted to move or not. In my own State of New Mexico, the White Sands Missile Range exists there. It is 100 miles north and south and it is 40 miles east and west, 100 miles by 40 miles, and almost all of that land was taken by condemnation. Condemnation occurs when a too strong central Federal Government just wants to go ahead and move. Forget those pesky citizens. The Supreme Court recently in the Kelo decision said that governments can, in fact, take private property and redistribute it to another private firm. That is what is at stake both left and right. Both agreed in this circumstance. Liberal and conservative, Democrats and Republicans, said the Kelo decision was one of the most atrocious in taking private property rights away from people. Madam Speaker, I would simply point out that private property rights are the foundation of our rights. I would urge all Members to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PEARCE

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

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Utah and recognize the hard work of my friend from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva). I think that we all agree patently that the underlying bill is not a problem. The problem is a very simple sentence that my friend from Utah would have included: no Federal funds may be used to condemn land, carry out the purposes of this act, or the amendment made by subsection B. It is a very simple amendment, one that is very clear. One would have to ask: Are there circumstances where we would be concerned about confiscation? Is it a valid concern? Has it been done before? Is it a worry that land owners or property owners might have to fear that confiscation would actually reach in and take their property and wrestle it away from them? That is the essential question before us. As the chairman of the Parks Subcommittee last year, we had the opportunity to listen to people along the Appalachian Trail. The Friars case was most prevalent. It is not the actual condemnation; it is the threat of condemnation that is the tool that is most often used; that we begin to persist from the Federal Government that we are going to take your land; that we can; that you need to just get along. So we have seen up and down the Appalachian Trail problems that come when land owners get in the way of a very strong central government. A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to be in Shenandoah National Park. I was amazed at the boldness of the park superintendent there. The entire visitors center was filled with stories of exactly the same thing, where a too strong Federal Government came in and began to take people and move them off the land because they were just so inconvenient. These constitutional rights of private property ownership were so inconvenient that we simply confiscated their land and moved about 4,000 families out of that whole Shenandoah area. Confiscation is a very real thing to people of New Mexico. The White Sands missile range extends for 100 miles north to south, 40 miles east to west. Ranch was confiscated because the Defense Department felt like it wanted to create a training base. Now, all of us in the area support the training base. We support that it is the largest overland missile training proving ground in the world. We are able to do magnificent things there. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the way that parcel of land was put together, by taking people and evicting them off their land. Recently, I had the opportunity to stumble across one of the books that people in dire frustration write in their home. No major publisher would pick it up and do it. It wasn't very well written, maybe. But it was published on a small printer or maybe even one of the old copying machines that we used to have in high school, but it talked about 50 years of confiscation there in that one section of New Mexico. So, yes, we do in this country face a problem of a too strong central government. I don't know if it is going to be a problem; Mr. Bishop alludes to the fact that we have land owners there who are expressing their concern of what is going to happen to them. None of us can say what any bureaucracy would do in the future. All we can do is offer the security of this one simple sentence: no Federal funds may be used to condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendments made by this subsection (b). Now, there are those who completely oppose this kind of restriction. Recently, I volunteered to help with the Continental Divide Trail that runs north-south, through the United States. It starts at the Mexican border, goes all the way to the Canadian border, and runs all the way north to south through New Mexico. That trail was originated in 1978 language, but in the intervening years not one mile across private property had ever been gotten. I volunteered to take that task on, but the one reassurance people wanted was, don't let them come and take my land later. I am sympathetic to the rights of private property owners. I think that we all should be, because private property ownership is at the heart of the success of our democracy and this Republic that we represent people in. Private property ownership is the basis of our Constitution. It is the basis of the economic way of life that we have in this country, and we should jealously guard it even to the point of putting in simple language like that that Mr. Bishop has suggested. It is not an unreasonable request. And, no, it is not some scheme rigged up to make it look like someone didn't get their job done. It is simply the people out West, where 60 and 70 and 80 percent of our States are owned by Federal Governments. Those people out West have a different view than those people on the east coast where almost nothing is owned by the Federal or State government. And we out West say, please, just take the time to put in this one simple sentence, to take the precautions that would protect the constitutional rights and liberties of our residents. It is not an unreasonable request, and we simply ask that the bill be voted against because of that one provision that is missing. I thank the gentleman for yielding

Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And if he would yield further, just point out that, again, we have had so many people come and testify about the Appalachian Trail that came through there, and I wouldn't call it systematic, but enough to where we began to feel, I began to feel uncomfortable with a too-strong National Park Service that was very energized about just getting this little parcel here, and it would make things fit so well that they began to really use their power in a way that was distressing. And that's, again, it's a very simply straightforward, transparent piece that is the problem. We've got some magnificent vistas out West that might not equal what you're talking about, but we share our love for those things, and it's unfortunate that this bill is kind of the focal point for this particular dispute. But again, it's certainly nothing to do with the gentleman's underlying assumption or his belief that this river is worth protecting, but is instead one that we're expressing our concern as cleanly as we can that a government can be too strong and too large and too heavy-handed. And we worry about that. But I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding time and also thank Mr. Lantos. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves exactly why would we be interested in this particular thing today. Some might claim that it's an old circumstance, that it existed too far in the past. Others might say that it simply is not our right, not our position, to enter into the discussion. As far as it being too far in the past, many times I go into the district of New Mexico, the Second District of New Mexico, and I bump into people from the Vietnam era, people my age. I was there in the 1970s, I flew in Vietnam. Many, many have hearts broken by the way a Nation treated them, and just a word of encouragement, just a word of saying welcome home, brother, brings tears that flow down men and women's cheeks from long ago past. We have a responsibility to impact those circumstances which were not right, which were not just, and no better person than Mr. Lantos to be talking about this today, because he understands that. He's a steady, quiet voice for reason. Regarding Ms. Lee, who is with us today, I would remember the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who said that the simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the entire world. He went on in that same talk to say that one person of truth impacts the whole world. So I think that we are called to quietly visit with our friends, the Japanese, and I think they are very good friends. I think that we, as good friends, should quietly say, Friend, it's time to acknowledge; it's time to apologize; it's time to speak. Because the healing just doesn't occur on the recipient's part, on those persons who were wronged; the healing begins in the heart of those who have perpetrated the actions. Admission brings a certain humbleness that each one of us begins to recognize that we are not above righteousness, we are not above rightness, that we are not above justice, truth. No single one of us is. So if we find ourselves at this curious point saying to a long-time trusted friend, It's time to acknowledge; it's time to apologize; it's time to recognize what we have done and to change, it's not a very harsh statement. It's not one taken in anger, but it is one taken with the noblest of objectives, and that is the recognition and the healing of a long-overdue act.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3067, the Small Public Housing Authority Act. Like many of my colleagues, I represent a rural district where most of the Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) operate in small communities. These small PHAs face excessive paperwork requirements and outdated regulatory burdens which undermine their ability to provide affordable housing to underprivileged families. Currently, all PHAs are required to submit both 5-year and annual plans to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. However, these PHAs do not have the time, staff or resources to complete these annual plans and often have to hire expensive consultants to help complete these annual plans. I am pleased that my friend, Mr. Neugebauer from Texas, has taken the steps needed to alleviate this burden on small PHAs by introducing H.R. 3067, the Small PHA Act. This legislation will bring long needed regulatory relief to small PHAs by exempting those with 250 or fewer public housing units and Section 8 vouchers from the requirement of submitting an annual plan to HUD. Today, I urge my colleagues to once again support regulatory relief for small PHAs by supporting H.R. 3067.