Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

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

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, just sticking with the facts, we had one of my colleagues talk about fluorspar, that's what's used to make toothpaste, as if there were no strategic minerals; yet when I look at the list of imported minerals, I see that we import 72 percent of titanium, which is used in jet aircraft, fighter jet aircraft, 72 percent. I think when we are discussing these facts, we should be talking about the critical facts, as I am sure that the gentleman was correct that we do import fluorspar, and it probably is used on toothpaste, but we probably should be talking about the domestic security, about the security of our Nation, about the willingness of our industry and the capability of our industry to provide the instruments to defend this country. We are at a time when terrorists are trying to overcome us, al Qaeda, radical jihad. The terrorists are trying every way they can, and we are going to put the source of critical minerals that are necessary for our Nation's offense outside the Nation's borders. It simply doesn't make sense. It actually does feel like a work in progress. It feels like we should have done more. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and would yield back our time.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Again, speaking today, we are wondering if the bill that we are talking about has an effect in all districts. And I would say we have a chart here which shows that rising commodity prices are driving people to stealing copper, stealing our minerals, and it is occurring in many of the districts, including the gentlewoman's district in California, where there has been a prosecution. And we have got 80 of these. We have a chart, but I won't show that. The concept of cleaning up abandoned mine lands is one that we are deeply encouraged by and associate ourselves with, and especially as it affects watersheds. Nowhere are watersheds more important than in the West, and especially New Mexico, because so little water exists throughout the West. Anything we can do to clean up watersheds in general, but, again, the abandoned mine lands is something that we are very supportive of from this side. It relates back to the comments that we have made in our opening statement that I don't think that on the core issues that we are very far apart at all, that we could have gotten where we all would agree with the bill. So we would accept the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman for her work on this in abandoned mine lands and watersheds in general. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California said we want to get the facts right; and if I heard him correctly, he said this bill is a work in progress. Now, we've had 135 years, according to him, to work on this bill, and we're going to rush it while it is still in progress. I really don't understand why we're going to take such a serious step as risking all the jobs in mines with work in progress. I think those were the words used and the facts used. The truth is we have a severe difference of opinion. I will quote from the chairman of the committee: No reason, no reason whatsoever why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product. That was in our markup hearing, and yet I would submit that energy production, timber production, water production, mineral production, they all affect the gross domestic product, and they are public land law. So I really just believe that we have a complete disconnect in the committee between the majority and minority. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start talking about first what this amendment is not. First of all, it is not a cost increase. CBO has said there will be no cost associated with it. Also, it is not an effort to reestablish the Bureau of Mines at the Department of the Interior. Congress abolished the Bureau of Mines before I came to Congress; but a key component of that agency, the Minerals Information Team, was entrusted to the U.S. Geological Service. Unfortunately, USGS has not recognized the critical nature of this program or the importance of the information the MIT produces. Today, at USGS, the Mineral Commodity Function is five steps below the USGS Director, and eight steps below the Secretary of the Interior. In contrast, the Energy Information Administrator is only one step below the Secretary of Energy. At DOI Minerals Information, it's just about like being a janitor; you have about that much access into the system. The Resource Origin and Commodity Knowledge, ROCK, Act, takes the mineral commodity information function away from USGS and creates and funds a stand-alone agency using DOI resources. It restores and funds the function Congress sought to retain and protect in 1995. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. I have no additional speakers. I will close if the gentleman is ready to close. Mr. Speaker, when I look on the walls of this Chamber, I see the quote by Daniel Webster up above the Speaker's chair, and it says: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' Worthy to be remembered. I think our Founding Fathers had it right. They visualized a nation of tremendous promise, where the wealth of the Nation and the protection of the Nation would come together in the production of its resources and in the taking care of its land. I don't find it unusual at all that the same generation protected Yellowstone and yet gave us the capability to create these mines, which take billions of dollars to promote and to produce. I don't find that unusual at all. But what I do find unusual is that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not listening to their own testimony coming in their own hearings. We heard testimony from both Democrat and Republican witnesses alike saying 8 percent royalties are unprecedented. They are damaging, destructive, they will hurt. Those are the things that we heard in the committee. I would suggest that we send this work in progress back to the committee and finish our work before we try to change 135-year-old policy. Mr. Chairman, I include a letter for the Record from Governor Palin of Alaska, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and others, all in opposition to the legislation proposed here. Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK, September 28, 2007. Hon. Nick Rahall, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rahall: The State of Alaska has completed a review of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. I attach the resulting position paper for your consideration. While we acknowledge the need to revise some of the same federal laws that H.R. 2262 modifies, we believe the legislation would unjustifiably harm the domestic mining industry, and the Alaska mining industry in particular. Our state produced almost $3 billion of minerals last year, four percent of the nation's total. We can continue and even expand this contribution indefinitely, but not without predictable access, on reasonable fiscal terms, to the federal domain in Alaska. Your legislation, H.R. 2262, would create several obstacles to such access and terms. Specifically: Prohibiting mining exploration and development on lands identified in the 2001 Forest Service ``roadless rule'' and in other ``special areas'' would place millions of acres off limits. These prohibitions are far too broad, particularly in Alaska where the federal government owns so much land, yet already offers so little of it to mineral exploration. A flat royalty on gross revenues will cause unnecessary mine shutdowns and job losses during periods of low prices. The government should adopt a flexible royalty that adjusts for high and low returns. The proposed new permitting system would unnecessarily duplicate existing laws while also creating great uncertainty and thus great risk for mineral exploration and development. We believe it could end exploration and mining on federal lands. Thank you for considering these views and the attached position paper as Congress works to reform the nation's mining laws. Sincerely, Tom Irwin, Commissioner.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the comments by the gentleman from West Virginia earlier about the administration, and I appreciate his praise. Although I don't always agree with the administration, I would say that the same administration he was praising has issued a veto threat because there is a constitutional abridgement that's possible in this bill, a takings violation, from the royalty structure. That would be a violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution. I believe that this work in progress should be sent back to the committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller) who has done great work on the bill.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership on this. We are discussing extremely important things. For instance, in the mining bill, which will be coming to the floor, a heated debate really arises about what does it matter. What does it matter if we add an 8 percent royalty on to the price of minerals? At one point yesterday in the debate, the chairman of our Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall of West Virginia, said, I see no reason, no reason whatsoever why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product. Now that is, to me, a stunning statement because I think policy should always consider the jobs in America. It should consider our standard of living, and it should consider the ramifications for our communities. Communities in the West, where mining occurs on public lands, will be affected most by this new royalty that is being suggested by the majority party. Now, we had comments at a field hearing, and we find the comments are very similar from the Democratic witnesses to the Republican; in other words, both sides agree. There's a James Otto, ``8 percent is excessive,'' he says. ``I'm only aware of a single royalty that is as high as the royalty proposed in the bill, just one in my 20 years of practice. An 8 percent royalty would really be ruinous,'' says James Cress of Washington on 10/2/07. ``I am particularly concerned about the potential impacts of the 8 percent net smelter return royalty called for in the last legislation. All the royalty costs will be absorbed by the mining companies, and this will be a direct adverse impact on the amount of mining tax revenues that flows into the State and to the counties.'' We had testimony from one country, and I think it was British Columbia, that increased their royalties and saw a tremendous decrease in their net tax revenues because companies simply moved out. Today, companies can move their mining assets; they can move their mining investments by simply a flick of the computer. If it's that easy, then we should be very cautious. We should be concerned about the gross domestic product before we jump into these very significant arguments. One of the letters that I have, and I would like, Mr. Speaker, to submit this as a part of the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, October 16, 2007. Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rahall: This is to request that the Committee hold additional hearings regarding our country's mineral policy as it relates to military and economic security before we convene a mark-up of H.R. 2262. Notwithstanding the amendment in the nature of a substitute discussion draft circulated late last week, we are very concerned that H.R. 2262 moves our country's mineral policy in the very opposite direction of recommendations outlined in the two recent National Research Council (``NRC'') reports: (1) Managing Materials for a 21st Century Military and (2) Minerals, Critical Minerals and the US. Economy. We are entering a challenging time for our nation which is only now beginning to become clear. China and India are consuming huge amounts of energy and minerals which they are willing to secure from parts around the globe and with which they are fueling unprecedented economic growth. At current rates of relative economic growth, one or both of them will surpass the United States in economic output within two decades. We are in a race. Now is not the time to rest. We must examine closely the consequences. . . . intended and unintended . . . of our actions. We owe nothing less to our children's future. I. Mineral Policy and America's Military Security One of the most fundamental functions of the Federal government is to provide for the common defense and our national minerals policy is inextricably linked to providing for that defense. It was America's natural resources--and the ingenuity and strong backs of American workers--that made us ``The Arsenal of Democracy'' that supplied the tools of victory in World War II. In many ways, minerals are the foundation to a strong modern military. Requiring our military to import the strategic and critical minerals it needs from hostile foreign nations puts our military on its knees before the battle begins. It will make the United States military the ``paper tiger'' China's Mao Zedong wished for in 1956 when he coined the phrase. Attachment 1 provides examples of strategic and critical military materials upon which our military already relies on foreign sources for. If we rush to create a minerals policy that further discourages a domestic minerals industry that is already shrinking because of the existing regulatory constraints, we will have left a grave legacy that is threatening to our long term stability. As discussed in the NRC's report, restarting or jump- starting a U.S. mining operation in response to supply interruptions would be very time consuming, expensive and in all probability, impossible. Consequently, the mineral policy moved by this Committee must take into account military needs. To this end, we request joint hearings with the House Armed Services Committee so that this issue can be fully understood by the Committee. II. Mineral Policy and America's Economic Security Mineral availability is a cornerstone to robust economic activity because minerals support the broadest range of manufacturing and industrial businesses, including transportation, defense, aerospace, electronics, energy, agriculture, communication, construction, and health care. According to the NRC's report, ``current lifestyles in the United States require per capita annual consumption of over 25,000 pounds . . . of new minerals . . . to make the items that we use every day.'' While our reliance on foreign sources of minerals may be less visible than petroleum, Attachment 2 illuminates the gravity of America's exposure in this regard. Our country is rich with minerals; however, the ``political availability'' compromises our independence on foreign sources of minerals. The NRC's report describes ``political availability'' as a significant part of mineral availability. The concept of ``political availability'' encompasses (a) legislation, rules and regulations that influence investment in mineral exploration and development and (b) the risks and results of change in these policies. While God has blessed our Nation with a rich natural resource base, it appears that the common sense with which He endowed our policy makers has not been used by its recipients. We are concerned that H.R. 2262 will adversely affect both of these ``political availability'' components. We are unaware of any witness in the three legislative hearings held by Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources thus far who testified that H.R. 2262 will increase domestic mining activity. Rather, several witnesses testified that H.R. 2262, as drafted, will be devastating to our domestic production of minerals, will be crippling our economy and will send more jobs overseas. We believe that moving H.R. 2262 out of this Committee in advance of an analysis of its impact on the overall U.S. economy is premature.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the continued politics being played with this year's veterans funding by the majority party. Last week, 44 Members of Congress sent a letter to the Speaker urging her to immediately bring a conference report on veterans funding before the House. Our goal was to pass this funding and avoid the political gamesmanship of the appropriation process. Earlier this year, the House and Senate both passed veterans funding with overwhelming support. The fiscal year ends on Saturday. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the top Democratic aides intend to hold our veterans hostage. A spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee called our letter and efforts to pass veterans funding immediately just ``a cute diversion.'' Mr. Speaker, there is nothing cute about withholding funding for veterans benefits. There is nothing cute about withholding funding for veterans health care. There is nothing cute about Democrats using veterans as political pawns in their appropriations strategy. I urge my colleagues not to let veterans funding be held hostage any longer. Our veterans are saying, don't betray us. Pass the fiscal year 2008 appropriations.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I find the comments very strange from the opponents of the amendment. They say that my amendment will stop rebuilding and let Osama bin Laden tell us where to rebuild. Currently the rate of insurance deductible is at 20 percent. The rebuilding is going on quite well, frankly, and they have sustained 2.5 percent increases through the past 6 years. What we are simply saying is we are going to start at 5 percent and increase 1 percent a year over 15 years back up to the 20 percent level. Yet we are being told that regardless of what is being built now, something is going to change in the equation and the people are going to stop rebuilding if we go up and go to this one-half percent increase. I find it heartening to know that we are within a half percent of stopping the entire economy of the U.S. on a one-half percent deductible and giving over our independence to the terrorists based on this one-half percent, when the truth is the last 6 years showed us that the industry will sustain 2.5 percent increases and continue to build exactly where they want to build, and in fact the industry will sustain on its own at least up to 20 percent. If we are estimating something above that, that would be unchartered territory. But I do find the arguments somewhat stunning. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, just as a disclaimer to the chairman of the committee, I did vote against this bill in committee and am still talking against the bill. Mr. Chairman, that is always a shock to you, and I'm just trying to settle your nerves down here at the beginning of my comments. I am supportive of the TRIA concept in general. I understand the market is not yet where it needs to be. As I explained in committee, our company was one of the companies who had to renew our insurance 30 days after 9/11. On October 11 every year we had to renew insurance. So we were some of the first to encounter the problem that some insurances simply weren't going to write insurance if we did not have some solutions. So I understood the concept. But we put into place some legislative changes that were slowly moving the marketplace to where it needed to be. And the market was responding. The marketplace was increasing the deductible percentages. The trigger limit was raised between the first two versions of the TRIA bill, and the industry retention level was raised, the Federal co-share was lowered, and those were all positive signs because we all recognized that the last thing we want to do is have, say, an agency like the Postal Service in charge of risk insurance. It does not meet the standards for a very mobile market. So in the long term, we would like to have the private sector handling this problem. It's where the responsibility then would fall on the people who are getting the benefit. As it is written, this bill begins to move us far beyond that concept. It begins to increase the mission, providing what should have been a temporary solution making it into a 15-year solution and with decreasing amounts of private sector employment or utilization. So responsibility in the end should be borne by the people who are buying the insurance and the insurance companies. And, again, I would speak against the bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007. My amendment takes one critical step forward in writing insurer participation back into TRIA. Five years ago, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, TRIA, was signed into law as a temporary program to facilitate transition to a viable market for private terrorism insurance. Since enacting TRIA in 2002, insurer deductibles have increased incrementally by at least 2.5 percent each year, from 7 percent in the first year to the current 20 percent level. The bill before us today scales back insurance industry participation in the terrorism risk market and reduces the expectation that a private market will one day take over. H.R. 2761 would lower the 20 percent deductible to 5 percent, increasing by one-half percent each year for events above $1 billion. At that rate, it would take 30 years before the deductibles would reach today's level, where Treasury assures us the market is performing very well. While I am supportive of TRIA as a concept and understand the market is not yet where it needs to be to take over terrorism insurance, I believe strongly that the responsibility for terrorism insurance needs to be on the insurers, not on the taxpayers. My amendment will rewrite some of the insurance industry participation back into TRIA. I have proposed a modest increase in deductible each year of 1 percent, an increase of one-half percent from where the bill is today. It will ensure that deductibles are back up to the current 20 percent level at the end of the 15-year extension. I believe my amendment is a step in the right direction towards encouraging a private terrorism insurance market, while providing the insurance industry with the environment for a stable transition. I hope that you will join me in supporting this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers and would just urge Members to support the amendment so that we can convert this public program back into a private program over a long course of time.

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

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

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the unnecessary delay in passing this year's veterans appropriations. This year's veterans appropriations passed with an overwhelming majority in both Houses, 409-2 in this body and 92-1 in the Senate. This kind of bipartisanship makes it clear to all that Congress takes its obligation to our Nation's veterans very seriously. I sincerely believe America's veterans want to see a final version of veterans funding quickly passed so they may receive the desperately needed funding. However, I feel this will not be the case. Last week, one Democratic aide, asked about this year's veterans appropriations, was quoted in Roll Call saying, ``These bills constitute the little bit of leverage we have.'' Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices that our young men and women are making in Iraq and Afghanistan are not leverage. The tragedies that occurred at Walter Reed are not leverage. Veterans health care is not political leverage. We must recognize that veterans funding is critical and should not be used for partisan politics. I urge my colleagues to rise above the partisan bickering and pass this. Our veterans are demanding: Do not betray us.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, it is with pride that I rise today to recognize the Curtis Montgomery Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #2575 on its 75th anniversary and its great service to the veterans of New Mexico. The Curtis Montgomery VFW Post #2575 was chartered in 1932 as a Congressionally chartered post. Over the last 75 years this post has been serving the veterans in the communities of Roswell, Artesia, Hondo, and surrounding areas. The post has more than 200 members, which include 100 life members. The post will soon be merging with Post #11384 in Roswell and pick up an additional 100 members. Post #2575 celebrated its 75th anniversary on September 1, 2007 with a ceremony. The program honored dignitaries of the City who have assisted veterans in the past. Special guests included members of Task Force Cobra from the area and veterans from all over New Mexico. Michael A. Trujillo, a Chaves County Commissioner and member of Task Force Cobra, honored the Post by presenting a flag flown over Iraq during Task Force Cobra's Iraq deployment to Post Commander Mike Point. Veterans from previous conflicts including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and later conflicts displayed memorabilia, shared memories, and reflected on their shared service to our nation. I wish to commend Post #2575 and all of its members for the great service they provide the veterans of New Mexico. Congratulations Post #2575 on 75 great years and keep up the good work.