Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, America is faced with an energy crisis today, and solutions have not been forthcoming under the current Speaker of the House or her leadership. The majority has failed in its effort to take any meaningful action to increase the domestic supply of energy for the American people. In a State like New Mexico, a very moderate income State, probably $25 to $30,000 a year is the average income, we find that the price of $4 gasoline is very difficult. Last week in a story in the Albuquerque Journal, Associated Press talked about a young woman with cancer who was being treated almost 200 miles from her home. The family had to suspend visits by her young children to visit her because of the price of gasoline. Each day we're finding these sorts of impairments in our daily living while the majority simply says, we're in favor of energy. I was listening with interest to the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, and I would invite him to sign on a letter that we will be producing today that would go from the Speaker of the House to mention to President Bush about those 68 million acres of land that are not being used. Let's remove, first of all, the regulatory burdens that are stopping that land from being used and produced. In Utah alone, almost 1 million acres by one office which is 7 years overdue in putting out the land management plan that would allow people to move ahead. Those are some of the acres that are moved from production that our friends talk about as if the greedy oil companies are sitting out here purposefully withholding production knowing that at all-time record highs, every company is producing every amount of oil and gas that they can get to, and they simply kind of twist the facts around. So I would invite the gentleman to sign on to that letter indicating his willingness to press the President of the United States to push the BLM into getting these regulations out the door. I would also be interested to see if the majority would recognize with us their failure in December by removing all shale oil from production. With one simple sentence in a bill in December, the majority removed almost 2 trillion barrels of shale oil from production, and again it tells me that maybe we have words on the House floor that differ from the words that are actually created in the votes. I would also welcome our friends on the other side of the aisle to change their votes on the wilderness areas that removed over 100,000 acres from production because wilderness stops all development of oil and gas. And so again, I find some difference in the words that we hear on the House floor and the words that are actually put into place by law when we vote. Additionally, there is a moratorium that limits 85 percent. We're told that the majority doesn't mind offshore production at all. Then go with us, sign a letter, and let's start producing just around the area, just in that spot where Cuba and China are drilling 47 miles off the coast of Florida. We have prohibited it ourselves through a moratorium in producing this oil and gas. So I would ask the leaders of the majority party to go with me and sign on to this letter to take that one spot and let's allow American oil companies to produce where we're allowing the Chinese to produce within our Outer Continental Shelf area. My amendment today to this House bill 1286 simply says that as we create this new trail system, we would like an accounting for all of the energy assets that are going to be affected by this bill. It's a very simple amendment. The majority has, in fact, got a statement in the bill that says nothing will hinder, but too often we find that we do not know what has been hindered and what has not been hindered. So our amendment is very simple. Let's just get a report from the Secretary of Interior to tell us exactly what the stakes are, which resources might be limited, which might be hindered, and it's a very straightforward amendment. I would appreciate if the majority would understand the reasons for this because we see every day that the American people are paying the price for the majority's opinion on energy. The opinion is that $4 gasoline is not too high, that in fact $4 gasoline will cause maybe a change within which we conduct our business; we ought to be converting to other forms of energy. The problem is we don't have wind cars, we don't have solar cars, we have no nuclear cars. America is on an oil and gas economy. We drive oil and gas cars, and as long as we limit the supply, we're going to drive the price higher. It's not American consumption. American consumption actually has remained quite stable for the last 10 years. It's actually Chinese consumption. It's consumption from those developing countries around the globe that are pushing the price of oil higher. Now, I did note with interest the comments that the majority party had done something for fuel efficiency. Actually, the majority party did nothing for fuel efficiency. I ask for support for the amendment.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 H. Res. 1242--Honoring the life, musical accomplishments, and contributions of Louis Jordan on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 439 H. Con. Res. 372-- Supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and to honor the outstanding contributions that African American singers and musicians have made to the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 440, H. Res. 1051-- Congratulating James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 100 years of service and leadership to the United States, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Forbes for your leadership in this call to establish American Religious History Week. Also, as a cosponsor of H. Res. 888, I'm strongly supportive of the idea that we should remember that we should always acknowledge the founding fathers' belief that this Nation was indeed blessed by our Maker, that we would, as a Nation, acknowledge our corporate belief. It's important to remember not only our founding, but also to take a look at where we're headed as a Nation. We acknowledge that our Nation was founded on the right to choose to believe or not believe, but also our founding fathers gave us choices in exactly how to express our faith. I believe that acknowledging America's rich spiritual and religious history is important and it is a great step towards accomplishing what would be the future of this country, America's religious heritage. It troubles me that we are beginning to see shifts in this country. We're seeing shifts, not in ideology, not in philosophy, but over whether we can even declare our faith publicly. In this country we're beginning to hear people say that if you declare faith publicly, you're infringing on their rights. I simply do not agree or believe in that. If you want to acknowledge your faith, there are people who say that it should be behind closed doors. This is sad. Often this mind-set is originating right here in Washington. This mind-set is originating in this institution, but it's also originating even in institutions where the members are not elected, and I think those are critical things for us to look at as we consider where this Nation is headed. This Nation has a motto ``In God We Trust.'' It was approved by Congress, and yet it's being circumvented sometimes by unelected officials. ``In God We Trust'' is printed on coins, on our currency. It is engraved on our buildings. It appears over the entrance to the Senate Chambers, and you can see the phrase engraved in this Chamber on the wall above the Speaker's dais. This phrase is woven into the fabric of our Nation, but we're beginning to see an unraveling of the phrase, an unraveling of this tradition of declaring that we do trust in God. This is a string that should not be cut. In 2006, the U.S. Mint announced plans to move the inscription ``In God We Trust'' from the face of the Presidential Dollar coin pieces to the thin edge around the dollar coin. In February of 2006 the Treasury announced that in an accidental omission an unknown number of Presidential coins had made it past inspectors and were sent into circulation without the words ``In God We Trust'' at all. Some estimates are as many as 50,000 of these coins are in circulation. I understand that mistakes happen, but sending 50,000 coins without the basic motto which this institution declared should be on our currency is a major mistake. I ask for the U.S. Mint to give a full report and accounting of the situation. Our history tells us the importance of God and faith in the birth of our Nation. The problems with the phrase, ``In God We Trust'' being omitted from our coin is just one indicator of how badly we're drifting off course. It is fitting that we honor the spiritual history with a week dedicated to remembering our founding and ensuring that the lasting connection which so many Americans share in and believe in is a part of our national fabric. I support H. Res. 888, and agree that we should, indeed, establish a week which declares American religious history. And I thank Mr. Forbes for yielding time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PEARCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I've listened with respect to the arguments from all of the speakers on the opposition side. I would note that $10 million, the amount that is designated for the RRW, is just enough to keep the doors open; that once we allow this team of experts to dissipate, once these people are hired away, then we will never build another team possible. This is just enough money to hold the human resources together to produce these weapons because we will not be able to produce them after we give up the human technology, the human capabilities, and so just enough to keep the doors open. It's exactly what the Senate did last year I would urge passage of the Pearce amendment.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the arguments that maybe we're taking too much money from the EEC program, the Energy Efficiency Conservation program, that we're actually taking 12 percent was what was stated, but actually the truth is from last year's funding, we're not taking a penny. We're actually leaving that program funded at exactly the same level. I have heard that we should not be building new weapons in order to give the right example to some of our friends around the world. And when I consider our attempts to influence our friends in North Korea, I would think that our unwillingness to build new weapons won't influence them at all. And when I think about influencing our friends in Iran, I think that our new posture of not maintaining our nuclear weapons will not influence them at all. In fact, they might be influenced in the other way. Mr. Chairman, the world is not safer since 9/11. The world is more dangerous. During the 50 or so years of the Cold War, we didn't experience one strike inside the United States that even came close to being like the attack on 9/11. Yet after the Cold War, 1993, we had the first attack on the World Trade Center and then the second attack in 2001. The world is getting progressively more dangerous, and I think for us to think that we can negotiate with these different countries is one that we should back up with the capability to strike back if a strike is needed. I would reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore a small sum of money into an important program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The RRW is critically important for our national security. Our current nuclear stockpile is aging. As it ages, we must constantly pour more money into maintaining the aging weapons. We have a choice to make as a Nation: Do we continue to rely on current weapon stockpiles and pay an increasing cost of maintaining the readiness and reliability of these weapons, or do we develop a new line of weapons to replace the current stockpile? The RRW would improve the overall shelf life of a warhead from 30 to over 50 years, and the program is true to its name. RRW does not pursue new nuclear weapons capabilities. Rather, it pursues making our weapons more reliable, and more reliable weapons will help reduce the maintenance costs of our nuclear stockpile and ensure that we have stable and reliable weapons ready, and most notably, reduce our overall nuclear stockpile by potentially as many as 1,000 warheads. Without RRW, we will continue to have a larger weapon stockpile. Not pursuing RRW is essentially counterproductive to our stated goals of arms reduction. Not only is my amendment the responsible thing to do for our national security, it's the fiscally responsible choice as well. The current life extension programs that are designed to extend the shelf life of expired warheads are at a great cost to the taxpayer. I think we should all agree on the goal of reducing our total stockpile of nuclear arms, and if you agree with that goal, then I urge you to adopt my amendment to restore funding for the RRW program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the patriotism and dedication of Bill and Peggy Zack. These two New Mexico residents have fully devoted their time and money to lifting the spirits of our troops deployed in Iraq. Mr. and Mrs. Zack began the Pocket flag project in 2002 and have since sent out over 70,000 pocket flags. The pocket flags are small folded American flags that are enclosed with a message. On a small piece of paper reads ``A flag for your pocket so you can always carry a little piece of home. We are praying for you. Thank you for defending our freedom.'' A heartfelt message that is sure to lift the spirits of our service men and women. Pocket flags have been sent to the 647 Support Group at Fort Bliss, Texas and all National Guard and special units being deployed through Ft. Bliss. Additional receipts of these flags include the Mountain Brigade in Fort Drum, NY and the AYN of the Alabama National Guard. The list goes on. It should also be noted that Bill and Peggy don't accept any donations to help them with materials and shipping expenses. In fact the cost of shipping all 70,000 pocket flags has summed up to about $10,000 and over 7,000 hours. The only reimbursement the Zacks will accept are the letters written by soldiers currently deployed. While the letters vary, most say how thankful they are for Bill and Peggy taking the time to send them a little piece of home. It is inspiring to know that citizens like Bill and Peggy Zack are trying to do all they can to lift the morale of our troops. On behalf of all servicemen and women I would like to thank Bill and Peggy Zack for all their efforts to comfort the troops in the Middle East.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I observe that we are hearing the same tired excuse that nothing in this underlying bill affects this. Yet I would simply point out to the ranchers of this land that now, under the majority, you don't rate as high as the sportsmen. You don't rate as high as those people who are concerned about border security, because we were told that same tired language that nothing in the bill affected them, but the majority's been willing to adapt the language here because they know that the underlying bill affects it. But they are not going to make one amendment in order that would protect our ranchers and protect and make sure that this language doesn't affect them. It is really unusual that we're hearing such a diverse opinion from the sponsor of this bill right now. It says that nothing affects it. And then he reads all sorts of language in, and again for those people who are watching and listening, I would simply say again, read the very simple language: ``Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System shall not affect the current grazing rights or operations.'' And yet we've built all of these potentials that we have created for this language that we are, in fact, rewriting the entire way that grazing is done. Grazing is always done by cows walking out and munching on the grass. And it's a very simple operation. I think that maybe our amendment is being overcharacterized. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona and his overcharacterization. But the truth is, we're simply trying to protect the ranchers in the West who use the public lands, and many times there are no private lands to graze off of. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, again, I would point out that in committee we heard these same comments that we are talking in generalizations, half- truths, complete untruths. We were told then that the border is completely secured in the current legislation, and now we find that maybe there is a reason to kind of adapt the wording. We also were told that there is nothing that would limit any sports, no hunting, shooting sports, that those assertions on the part of the minority were simply generalizations, half-truths and untruths. So it's really amazing to me that those half-truths now are being incorporated into the bill by first the bill sponsor and then by another one of the majority Members. The complete idea and argument that all of our discussions have been generalizations, half-truths and untruths, simply now rises to a level which we have to ask ourselves on which side do the generalizations lie, on which side do the untruths lie and on which side do the half truths lie, because we are finding the majority that is adopting and adapting the bill now in order to make it more secure if they did not blink, if they had not believed the arguments in committee, they would not be making these changes today, they would not be trying to work out deals behind the scenes to make this a little bit more, maybe, less risky. I think if we all see what's going on, I think if we see the majority blinking in a big way here on the floor, it just tells us we should turn down the underlying language and turn down this offensive impact on our public land management. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2016. One of the Resources Committee staffers was just pointing out that 6 years ago she paid $1.10 for gasoline. Now we are seeing the price of gasoline at $3.30 and increasing. Now what have we done to improve the lives of the middle-class citizens who are struggling to pay taxes and to pay the cost of fuel for their car, and then face the prospect of losing jobs? Well, in 1995, the Republican Congress passed the provision to drill in ANWR. President Clinton vetoed that. If that had been passed, today we would have 1.5 million barrels of oil in production coming daily from there to help stem the price of gasoline. We have limited the ability to drill in our outer continental shelf, even though China is drilling 47 miles off our coast. So again, we are allowing foreign countries to develop our resources, yet we are restricting ourselves. This past December, this Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, put 2 trillion barrels of shale oil off limits in Colorado saying, I guess, that we're going to go ahead and import, and we're going to face the higher price of gasoline. Now, if we think there is no connection between the price of gasoline and this bill, take a look at the Wilderness Society and their 18-page brochure which tells us that it is imperative that we do something with this bill, that we pass this bill. It lists as problems that this bill will correct, road building, energy exploration, mining, recreational use, offroad vehicle use, boundary adjustments. These are all the immediate threats that the Wilderness Society points out that the NLCS is going to stop. So we find that even the supporters of the legislation realize it is going to affect energy development, and yet our friends on the other side of the aisle say we are going to accept $3 gasoline, we are going to import from Hugo Chavez, and we are going to continue to import from the Middle Eastern countries that despise us and work against us. And they say they, as a majority, are not going to do anything. And in fact, they are going to pass this bill, which makes it more difficult for us to produce energy off of Federal lands. It just does not make sense in these times when it is a struggle for middle-class taxpayers to pay the bills of the family, to feed the family and then get the kids to the soccer games, to the classrooms and back, and we are passing a bill that has significant effects on the western lands of this country. In many of my counties, we have 10 percent private lands. In many of my counties, the back will be broken of all economic activity as we undergo this management change, this way we manage our lands. Our western lands are managed well. Maybe the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service could do a better job. But they are doing a good job. Instead, we are going to say we are going to treat all of the western lands like parklands where we have no economic activity at all. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is sadly misguided. And it is not without understanding. My office proposed an amendment for wind energy on these lands. And they rejected without debate the idea that we would not only want to have energy production, but also convert to renewables on public lands. They rejected that without debate, without discussion, because they know they do not want the footprint of any entity, not even oil and gas or renewable energy. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we turn this bill down flat because it is going to affect the future of all of our hardworking citizens. Just last year, Dow Chemical announced a $22 billion facility is going to Saudi Arabia. It is going because the price of natural gas is so high here. It took over 10,000 jobs with it when it went. We are seeing our jobs leave because of the policies that are being put in place by this majority. And this bill is just one more addition to those bad pieces of legislation of bad policy that is restricting oil and gas and restricting renewable development on the lands.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, today I'm offering a simple, straightforward amendment. It states, ``Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System shall not affect current grazing rights or operations.'' That's it. This language is very clear. We're working to protect the ranching economies of our western States. In the West, many of our communities depend on ranching as a traditional and an important way of economy. The West was settled by ranchers who brought with them little more than a few cattle, the clothes on their back and hope for the future. Today, America's ranchers still hold the dream of a better future. In New Mexico and across the West, our ranchers are real conservationists and know how to protect the land they depend on every day. Their lands are often the backstop against growth, and they are the voice of preserving the rural nature of our lands. However, in countries in the West, it's not uncommon that we find 30 percent, 18 percent, 6 percent or even 2 percent private lands. Therefore, our ranchers depend on public lands for their operations. These ranchers bring in millions of dollars of economic activity to New Mexico and the entire West. In many places, ranching is the single largest economic driver in our communities. My amendment will ensure that nothing in this act cuts off the current operations of ranchers in the West. Without this amendment, it is entirely possible that the enactment of this bill will cut off millions of dollars in activity and devastate our western counties. Supporters of this bill tell us that it will not stop the multiple use of our BLM lands. However, my amendment ensures that this legislation does not stop ranching. Let me leave you with no doubt. This amendment will ensure that we do not cut off our ranchers from lands that they have used for years. In some cases, the same ranching families have administered these lands for more than 100 years. Ranching is an important part of our economy, an important part of the history of the West, and passing this amendment will ensure that ranching has a part of the future in this West. It's a simple amendment. It is endorsed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, New Mexico Wool Growers and the New Mexico Federal Lands Council. Mr. Chairman, I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Holloman Middle School teacher Ms. Trude Trudell. Ms. Trudell's hard work and dedication have earned her the Otero County, New Mexico, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, Teacher of the Year award. It is her devotion to her students that earned her this tremendous honor. Good teachers like Ms. Trudell inspire the young minds of this country and shape our youth. Ms. Trudell was a member of the military before becoming a teacher. Yet she has said that teaching is the toughest job she has ever held. Ms. Trudell's work has made a tremendous impact on the lives of students in Otero County. An education is an open door to the future for our children, and teachers have a key role in helping open that door for our children. Without great educators like Ms. Trudell, our children would not be prepared to enter the economy of the future. It is also teachers like Ms. Trudell who take pride in their work and use their own ambition to drive students to succeed. This award is a reflection of Ms. Trudell's commitment to making an impact on the lives of each and everyone of her students. Her top priority is preparing her students for the future, and for that on behalf of the people of the New Mexico, I want to thank her for her service. Teachers like Ms. Trudell give us all hope for a better future for America.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great achievements of Lt. Larry Furrow. In the 41 years that Larry has served the U.S. military and Government, he continually showed great dedication, knowledge, and skill. I greatly admire his dedication to his work. His many years of education and lifetime of experiences make Mr. Furrow a noteworthy man and an exceptional example to other people. Mr. Furrow's service to his country did not stop in the military after he gained the rank of lieutenant in 1993. He went on to become the chief of public affairs for White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. These are all reasons to honor Mr. Furrow, but he is also admired for his great sense of humor that attracted people to him-- whether it was in the military, flying people around, or working in public relations for White Sands Missile Range. Among his many respectable traits, Mr. Furrow is also an enthusiastic outdoorsman who likes to spend time snowshoeing, skiing, and running marathons. He is not only adventurous and dedicated, he is also a loving husband, father, and grandfather. In all of the years that Mr. Furrow has been in the workplace, he has exemplified hard work, dedication, and commitment to duty and country. It is inspiring to know and a privilege to honor Mr. Furrow in his time of retirement. On behalf of the people of the Second District of New Mexico, I congratulate Mr. Furrow on his outstanding career and know that he will continue to inspire others with the intelligence, leadership, thoughtfulness and humor that he displayed to so many throughout the years.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize young scientists from the Cloudcroft Middle and High schools in my district who recently competed against over 3,000 students from across New Mexico in the New Mexico Science Olympiad. Each school placed third in the overall team awards. Leading to their third place finishes, these students from Cloudcroft were also recognized in almost all of the 40 different science categories. These categories range from those we are most familiar with like biology and chemistry, to the newer fields in science and technology like robotics and forensic science. Just like the students before them who competed and raised the bar, these two teams from Cloudcroft have risen to the challenge, and in so doing, push future students to even greater success. As these teams continue to push the envelope and inspire other students, I have full confidence that future teams from Cloudcroft will soon find themselves at the national competition held each year in Washington, DC. Among the highlights of Cloudcroft's showing at the NM Science Olympiad are the achievements of two seniors, Sean Henry and Ann Birch. These students received highly sought-after scholarships to the New Mexico Institute of Technology. Only 10 of these awards are set aside for top scoring students. I am pleased their talents have been recognized and wish them the best of luck as they continue their education. New Mexico has a rich history of conducting cutting-edge science research and development, and these students embody the innovative spirit that we associate with science and technology in New Mexico. These talented students will play an increasingly important role in our society. They are the future of science and technology in our State and I am impressed with their accomplishments. On behalf of the people of the Second District of New Mexico, I congratulate these students, their teachers, and families for their tremendous achievement.