Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

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. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. PEARCE. The gentleman understands, I mean, it is a very straightforward, transparent thing that we're suggesting. What was offensive about this particular amendment that simply says no Federal funds may be used to condemn, and it just gets really clear, because again, those of us in the West, maybe we're overly sensitive, but so much land has been taken from us that it is, it is a point at which we begin to resist. Why wasn't that amendment simply agreed to?

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.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi and gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for their work for homeland security because it is truly a bipartisan issue. It was my privilege to serve on the committee with both of them in a previous Congress, and I miss that service during this current Congress. I rise today to compliment the majority for yielding to the will, the will of the American people, because the provision that does protect John Does from lawsuits was curiously stripped out of the conference report previously. I'm pleased, though, that today's final conference report includes those provisions protecting John Does from lawsuits for reporting suspicious activity. In March, Mr. King and I teamed up as the House passed the sense of my Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act as the motion to recommit to the Rail and Transportation Security Act, H.R. 1401, by a 304-121 margin. Again, that was 304 ``yeses'' to 121 ``noes.'' Today, we finally adopt and send this provision, along with this bill, to the President, something that is not only a right step but a critical step. This provision will make America safer, will make Americans more aware of terrorist activity and will show the terrorists that we are standing strong in the war on terror. Ever since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been telling the American people that they should immediately report suspicious activity that they see. Citizens are on the front line of our domestic war on terror. Our Founding Fathers declared eternal vigilance be the price of liberty. It was Brian Morgenstern, an alert American, who stopped the Fort Dix terrorists by speaking up and reporting what he saw on videotapes. It was an alert ambulance crew in June who noticed the Haymarket car bomb in London, England. However, terrorists and their supervisors are trying to use our freedoms against us. On 9/11, the hijackers knew how the crew on the plane would respond and used that knowledge against them to carry out their attacks. Last November, 6 imams who behaved in manners and methods similar to those 9/11 terrorists were reported to authorities. Now, those six imams are using our courts to terrorize the Americans who reported their behavior. The John Doe provision in this act will simply help stop this terrible shakedown of alert and responsible Americans. If we are serious about fighting terrorism, if we are serious about protecting Americans and asking them to help protect each other, then we need to pass the provision that is in this bill today. I know most Americans were shocked to know that this simple, commonsense issue became an issue of partisan sniping. We should have never had to fight over this provision. Today, we're going to make a choice. The Israelis said it best, There's no room in the world for political correctness. Today, we're going to make that choice, choosing political correctness or securing the American people. We will tell the trial lawyers you cannot terrorize Americans in our courts. Vote ``yes'' on this conference report. I thank the gentlemen both for their work.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Are we requested to address our comments to the Chair?

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it is always imperative that we discuss issues that are brought forward. Members of Congress often point to other countries who abridge treaties, who abridge contracts of our companies working in those countries, and they claim foul. Recently Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil industry and the electricity and oil companies. Yet the people who work for oil companies that are U.S. oil companies trying to push back that takeover were told why shouldn't we do that, your own government is doing it; we have the right. They are referring to the language that is in this bill that affects the offshore leases, the '98-'99 leases. The Washington Post described the actions that were taken back on H.R. 6, which are very similar to these actions, as ``heavy handed.'' The stability of contracts, this heavy-handed approach, an attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia, and others have been criticized for tearing up revenue-sharing agreements with private energy companies. Mr. Speaker, we are doing things that affect oil companies and energy prices to Americans. I oppose this rule because it violates the rule of law.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his discussion on energy security. And for my discussion tonight, I would like to begin at the same point that my friend from Ohio from the other side of the aisle began. She was quoting accurately an oil industry study which says that supply cannot keep up with demand, that prices are going to be high, that supply is going to be tight, and that is for the foreseeable future through the next decades. Now, the response that we had in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was literally to, number one, recognize that it is not possible to convert overnight; so we had incentives there for the very hard-to-get oil and gas. That is the deep, the very deep, ultra-deep, and then offshore. Now, the offshore platforms are extraordinarily expensive. They maybe look something like this. Our friends from Louisiana would recognize many of these, and California. These units cost over $1 billion to $1.5 billion. We don't invest in them easily, but they produce a tremendous amount of energy. It is the belief of those who are concerned about the energy business, concerned about the fact that prices are high, that supply is low, they really only have two choices if prices are high and supply is tight. You can lower demand, which Americans have not seen to want to do, or you can increase supply. So these units here, we had great incentives for those, and we felt like that would bridge us during the years to where consumers would begin to consume differently. But I would ask our average listener, how many people do you know who actually put biodiesel in their car or their truck? How many are using any fuel other than straight gasoline? We have got some of it augmented by ethanol. But how many cars really do significantly reduce the consumption? If the answer is not many, then you would be concerned about the time to convert. And we have had testimony in our Resources Committee where both sides of the aisle say we are probably on a 20- to 40-year conversion that you and your family probably will not drive a different car for 20 to 40 years that has a different power source than what it has got right now. So we either recognize the truth in the matter and we encourage supply while we are converting to those renewables, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had great stimulation. I think the difference, though, is that when we are confronted, as business- supporting conservatives, with the idea that the oil industry study says the supply is limited, it cannot keep up with demand, that we probably should increase supply. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, and I would quote, said that we are going to reinvent our economy in the first decade of this century. Now, it is not possible to reinvent an economy in 2\1/2\ years because we are already at year 6\1/2\. It is just not possible to reinvent an economy in 2\1/2\ years, and that becomes the great disconnect on the discussion. I would like to spend the rest of my time talking about the energy suggestions that our current majority has. We have recently marked up H.R. 2337. We have recently passed that out of the Resources Committee. And I will tell you that we need to make one point perfectly clear, that H.R. 2337, the Rahall energy bill, which is intended to be a piece of the package that is brought to this floor, will cost Americans jobs. It will increase the cost of natural gas and gasoline. And it is going to stunt the growth of the alternative and renewable energy industry. H.R. 2337 is called the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act. It could be called the ``American Job Outsourcing Act,'' it could be the ``Chinese Full Employment Act,'' or it could be the ``Funding Mechanism for Hugo Chavez,'' but to declare that it is the ``Energy Industry of America Revitalization'' is intended to be a stretch of the facts. During congressional hearings in Congress, we've heard a lot of testimony from witnesses talking about the impact of our actions on the cost of energy. So I would refer to another chart which simply talks about the cost of our energy is going to be increasing dramatically. We have received this testimony that the cost of energy probably will go up to a 23 percent increase in some areas, 29 percent on the California coast, 32 percent in the Texas region, 21 percent in the South, and in the Southeast, 19 percent; 20 percent in New York. So you see significant energy increases because of the increasing consumption of natural gas. One witness, Paul Cicio, testified that America has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs to overseas competition due to this kind of energy increases. It is an important point because we need good jobs in America. High-tech industries and high-tech manufacturing are the future of our economy, yet they're tremendously energy dependent. You can't put a server farm in Washington or San Jose unless you have the energy to power it. You can, however, put it in Beijing because the Chinese are committed, like one of my friends said, building 544 coal- powered plants over the next 10 years to ensure they have enough cheap power. Cheap power is the key to keep their economy moving forward. At the hearing we talked about, a couple of months ago, how Dow Chemical was going to build a $22 billion facility in Saudi Arabia because of the price of energy here in the U.S. And yet, what we're doing is restricting our access to energy here in the U.S. while we're not restricting the overseas, ensuring that we're going to import more energy, ensuring that jobs are going to continue moving to those cheap sources of energy. American prices are simply too high, and we're doing nothing about it. And the renewables, though they have promised, the renewables are far, far into the future, decades into the future, where they begin to affect us. We can see that energy prices are already high and headed higher. The projections show that they're going to be 20 to 30 percent increases, which drive these billion dollar projects overseas. I would comment that the Dow Chemical plants in both China and Saudi Arabia are going to take 10,000 jobs, those are 10,000 jobs which would be in the hundred thousand dollars range if they're here in America, and yet because of the low energy prices overseas compared to here, we're going to export those jobs. And it simply does not make sense. Since 2000, our offshore gas production has dropped 40 percent. Our next chart will show that production decrease. It's very difficult to see, the yellow line is on the top, moves along here. And we see the energy decreasing as it moves across the chart. We would recognize that onshore gas is actually a flat stable line, but the offshore is decreasing rapidly. And yet the Outer Continental Shelf, where we have great potential large, large resources, we're restricting access to those areas. Meanwhile, in the Rocky Mountains, where we restrict access there, those are fields which already have been drilled, so it's not as if they're pristine. We just are limiting our access to our own resources, which then compounds the problem that Ms. Kaptur started out with initially. Prices are high, supply is tight. And we're seeing that supply gets tighter, and we're going to then increase the price. Another thing that H.R. 2337, the Rahall energy bill, is doing is limiting shale completely. We're restricting the regulatory framework that was supposed to be out already and saying that it won't come forward. And without regulation, the industry is simply going to die. Now, that's important because in the long term, the 20 to 50 year term, shale causes America to be the Saudi Arabia of energy. If we consider just oil, Saudi Arabia has the dominant amount of energy in the world. But when we consider shale, the U.S. then becomes the dominant energy producer, and yet we're killing that industry completely. We're in the shape that we're in today because of our decisions over the past 30 years. We chose not to build new refineries. We have chosen not to have nuclear energy. We have chosen not to drill more in this country, but instead, to restrict access on Federal lands, and so we simply have a problem of tight supplies and high prices. And those are going to continue for the foreseeable future. Now, what does 2337 do regarding renewable energy? We hear our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the need for renewables, but this bill begins to hurt the renewables. It begins to restrict the renewable energy development, also. It just doesn't make sense. But we heard from four Democratic witnesses at one hearing that coal cannot be a part of America's energy future if we're to combat global warming, but according to the bill H.R. 2337, it's about the only energy source left because of restricting oil and gas in 2337. We also give deep restrictions onto the wind industry so that the Wind Energy Association came out opposed to the bill saying it cripples our industry. The bill places new costs and restrictions on the solar industry, requiring new labor provisions, per acre fees, and purchasing restrictions. So this bill harms domestic oil and gas production, reducing domestic production, increasing our reliance on foreign oil, but it also begins to limit our development of the alternative energy sources, but even worse, the most restrictive thing for alternatives is that there were corridors that were implemented in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Those corridors recognize that places where renewables are created are not where the population is generally. New Mexico is one of the few States that would be self-sufficient on wind, yet we can't consume all of the wind energy that we would produce there. And so there were corridors that were lined up to take the renewables from where they're produced maybe in New Mexico to Los Angeles or New York, wherever, and yet those energy corridors receive a death blow in this bill, H.R. 2337, which again is passed out on pretty well party lines and is coming to the floor of the House as a part of Ms. Pelosi's energy package. And yet you have to ask, where is the energy in the bill? Because I see where the limitations on oil and gas are; I see where the limitations on shale are; I see where the limitations on wind and solar are. Exactly where is the energy production going to come from? I guess with the carbon sequestration that is in the bill, to the dismay of our friends on the other side of the aisle, it's going to ensure that coal is our only source of fuel for the future. But they're also trying to limit its use. Finally, regarding royalties. This bill attempts to capture royalties owed to the American Federal Government. Like the chairman, I strongly believe that American taxpayers should receive the royalties that are due. Nevertheless, we differ when it comes to the method of collection. I support a Royalty in Kind program where we simply declare the number of barrels produced. We can meter that, it's very easy. We don't have to calculate the price because the price changes every day. And so the take to the Federal Government changes every day if we're contemplating dollars, but Royalty in Kind is very simple, but it also puts a lot of accountants out of business, puts a lot of tax lawyers out of business. And so we could call the provisions here where we kill the Royalty in Kind program in 2337, the ``Tax Lawyer Full Employment Act.'' Because that's what it's going to do, it's going to put people in the courts saying, now exactly what was the price on November 7 of 2001 when you sold that gas? It would be so much easier just to take the meter reading, take the government's percent, and put it into the government's coffers. In our legislative hearing on this bill, leading Members on the other side of the aisle chastised our royalty regime saying it parallels countries whose corrupt governments are blowing up the rigs. That was a quote. Then they're moving to this country to exploit our low rates. But how ironic is that? You wish for the U.S. to set an example for the world on climate change, but want to follow the lead of Venezuela and Nigeria on royalties. I support increasing production that will bring good, safe jobs and energy to America. I support efforts to keep the ``American take'' as a portion of energy development to a reasonable level that ensures companies have the money to provide safe working conditions, keep their facilities up to date, and reinvest in development and exploration. Finally, we had comments all through the time that the royalties received by the U.S. Government are so much lower than Russia, so much lower than Venezuela. Yet I would like to share a final chart with you that shows some of the problems. This picture is in Russia. And I will guarantee you that you will see no oil field in America like this. The opponents on the other side of the aisle of the level of royalties that we take currently simply want to make a moral equivalency between the kind of government and regulations that allow this, and the government and regulations in this country which have produced one of the strongest energy economies in the world, which have produced the most dramatic economy of American exceptionalism in the world, and yet they're trying to unravel that and undo that. I would hope that we all would look at the energy suggestions from our friends on the other side of the aisle, that we would carefully evaluate the fact that the supply cannot keep up with the demand, that prices are going to be high, and the supply is going to continue to be tight unless we do something about it. I thank the gentleman for yielding tonight and appreciate the discussion on both what we've done in the past, and what we're looking for in the future according to 2337.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1982, the Rural Housing and Economic Development Improvement Act of 2007. RHED is designed to provide grants to Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State community or economic development agencies, local nonprofit organizations and community development corporations. H.R. 1982 was introduced in response to the administration's budget proposals for the fiscal year 2008, which zeros out the RHED program by consolidating it into the Community Development Block Grant program, CDBG. This shows a continuing promise by the administration to more effectively manage its grant programs. However, preserving the one remaining outreach in HUD to rural communities is critical in helping our most impoverished citizens. The Second District of New Mexico, which I represent, is one of America's most rural districts, and it is critical that Congress provide our rural citizens with the proper access to safe, affordable housing. For example, in the town of Columbus, New Mexico, near the Mexican border, there are citizens who have no running water in their homes. They must bring a pail to the center of town in order to get water for their families. Many times these individuals are overlooked because of geography, and we must protect their rights. I would like to thank Congressman Hinojosa for recognizing the need for safe housing in rural communities like those in southern New Mexico. The need for this kind of program is great in the Second District, and I am grateful to assist in seeing that Congress is coming to the aid of the neediest families in rural areas. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 408 to honor Cathedral Square Corporation in respect to their 30 years of dedicated service to providing quality, affordable housing for seniors and individuals with special needs. The United States must take care of its seniors and individual needs. I appreciate the work done by the Cathedral Square Corporation over the last 30 years to provide the most quality assistance to our seniors and special need individuals. I thank and congratulate the CSC on reaching their 30th anniversary. And I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

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

Mr. PEARCE

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

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to support H.R. 1980, the Housing Assistance Council Authorization Act of 2007, and would like to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for his work on this and also Chairwoman Waters for bringing this important initiative for rural communities to the floor today. This legislation recognizes the work of the Housing Assistance Council in providing housing opportunities for low-income families in rural communities, and most of the Second District is rural communities in New Mexico. There are many others across this country, but we feel the direct impact in New Mexico. Although HAC has received funding through HUD appropriations since the early 1980s, the program has never been authorized. This bill would formally authorize assistance councils, which is important to ensure the continued success of the program and long-term goal of aiding individuals in low-income housing. The Housing Assistance Council is unique in nature and the only nonprofit designed to help improve rural housing. HAC should be particularly praised for its work on self-help housing initiatives, which promote personal stability and financial responsibility for low- income housing. Again I want to thank my colleagues for acknowledging the Housing Assistance Council's important contribution to affordable housing for rural communities, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are told today that it's time to refocus on the war on terror. Yet as I read this bill, and I would encourage each one of you to go online and read H.R. 2956, I see no refocus on the war on terror. I see nothing in H.R. 2956 which describes the threat from radical jihad. I see no plan. We are told that we need to communicate with the White House, that we need to send a bold message to the President. I am sorry, he's right down the street. It's the people who are causing terror, worldwide terror, that the communication needs to be sent to. Now, I can't tell you exactly what our troops are feeling as we debate these measures. I can tell you that I was in Vietnam flying missions in Vietnam at the time that Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to our enemy, and a time that this Congress was withdrawing support from that war. And I can tell you what soldiers at that time felt. They felt dismay. They felt betrayal. They felt like we had been led down a path. If this were really an attempt by our majority party to deal with the situation that they are concerned about, it should have an immediate withdrawal date. But it lacks that because it's a political tool rather than an attempt to refocus on the war on terror. I can tell you that it does not ask key questions, key questions like, how will unilateral withdrawal prevent al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist operatives already in Iraq from establishing robust training facilities from which to plan and execute additional strikes against the United States? It fails to answer the question that both Israel and Jordan have asked when they said that unilateral withdrawal, much like the Democrats' plan, would have a devastating consequence on their countries and the region as a whole. What impact will our unilateral withdrawal from Iraq have on the safety of regional allies, such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait? Those questions go unasked and unaddressed in H.R. 2956, because this is not a plan to refocus the war on terror. This is a plan to withdraw and hope that we can retreat home without anyone following us. It just won't happen that way. The terrorists will come with us as we retreat. I urge defeat of H.R. 2956.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her yielding and for her work on the issue and thank the majority party for their work. We're involved in a very serious discussion here. I was in the Air Force in 1970, in Reese Air Force Base in Texas in pilot training, and the Shah of Iran's son was in the class right behind me. I didn't know much about the Shah of Iran, coming from Hobbs, New Mexico, but we began to watch and began to visualize as he left training, and those Iranians who were in the training class with me left and went back home to Iran, what their life was like flying jets in the Middle East. And then in 1979, the Shah was suddenly out of power, just like that. The ayatollah came to power and instituted a tremendous repressive regime that continues to this day. Now, the question that our friends on the other side of the aisle fail to ask is what is their plan to see that our friends in the Middle East have stability because, in fact, they're balancing the terrorists in their own countries every day. They're balancing them using our force and our will and our promise to help. So what do our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, what do they do? When I went to Israel earlier this year, Israel simply said they fall. If you leave Iraq, those nations fall. Now, it's an uncomfortable truth, but somehow we're not going to talk about some uncomfortable truth these days. It's an uncomfortable truth that the entire Middle East is facing a problem of stability. If the entire Middle East faces a problem with stability, the entire world has a problem of stability because, if the Middle East exports about 25 to 30 percent of the world's oil, which it does, then the world oil market becomes destabilized, the world economy becomes destabilized, and in the end, the terrorists win because they have destabilized the world rather than defeat any of the forces in the world. That's been their long-term plan, to export instability, and they have been doing a very good job of it. Now, the President after 9/11 said we're going to fight a war on terror that simply does three things: we're going to take away the training camps, we're going to choke off their funding, and we're going to take the fight to them. Now, you can agree or disagree that Iraq is a place of combat with the terrorists, but it looks like to me that the terrorists from all over the world are coming in there. Iran is providing terrorists and weapons, Syria, other nations; and so whether or not it appears that the war is there, our soldiers believe that they're actually fighting al Qaeda. So the President's plan has definitely uprooted the training camps. We've begun to squeeze off the funding to the al Qaeda troops, to the terrorists worldwide, and we have taken the fight to them. But now then, when we retreat, when we come home, the question that has failed to be asked by our friends who have this resolution calling our troops home, it fails to ask what do we do for world stability at that point. It is a serious omission. It's not accidental. I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Native American Economic Development and Infrastructure for Housing Act of 2007.'' I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Chairman Barney Frank, Representatives Dale Kildee, Dan Boren, and Rick Renzi who I want to thank for their support. This legislation will help Native Americans build stronger and better communities all across America. The demonstration project embodied in this bill will help Native Americans build not only improved neighborhoods, but the economic infrastructure to support those communities in some of the most rural and impoverished areas in America. 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 annual CDBG allocation. This is known as the Section 108 loan guarantee program and encourages economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities and large-scale physical development projects. Title VI of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act, NAHASDA, is similar to the Section 108 statute and allows tribes to borrow or issue bonded debt for 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 strictly limited to activities that do not generate sufficient income to pay back these loans. We all know that economic development and infrastructure needs are acute in Indian Country. This legislation gives tribes the same access to vital economic and infrastructure resources that non-tribal communities currently use. Under this program, an applicant would have to demonstrate to the Secretary that 70 percent of the benefit of the proposed project would go to ``low-income Indian families on Indian reservations and other Indian 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, and ensures that proposed projects meet the need of the communities we all seek to support. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this legislation so that we can support the efforts of local tribal communities as they work to improve their infrastructure and economies and to increase opportunities for Native American families.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I did make my living in oil and gas. I never owned one oil and gas well; but I will tell you, we went down holes. We were plumbers, and we fixed the oil wells and so I have seen the cost and difficulty of producing energy from a very close point of view. My wife and I employed 50 people in a small company that simply repaired oil weapons. Reasonable people can have different points of view, but I have watched the trajectory of the Democrat energy bills, first H.R. 6, the energy bill that came through our Resources Committee and now this Interior Appropriations. And I will tell you that from my point of view, the Democratic energy agenda is anti-American energy. It insists that we import more. It is going to send more jobs to China and it is going to make life harder for Americans. The motion to recommit simply says let's have the secretary certify. If you reasonably believe that I am wrong about my assumptions, we are going to send this back to the secretary to certify that nothing in this bill will reduce the amount of domestic energy or result in increased imports. I think if you believe in your bill, you should not be afraid to cause that review by the secretary and that certification that we are going to protect consumers. Because every one of us hear from consumers every day, our constituents, that the price of gasoline is too high. It is too high because of the policies that we in America, we in this American government have caused. Section 115 is a very simple section. It is the only research and development section for ultra-deep oil. I can tell you that the deeper you go, the more expensive oil is to get. And it is not for the big companies, it is for the small companies that can't have research and development. The only research and development money that is available for small companies is in section 115. It has been taken out of every other section. Shale oil is title VI. Shale oil is two times all the reserves of oil and gas in the entire world. Two times. It would make us self- sufficient, and yet we are removing shale oil. My friends, these are the reasons that I believe the policies that are being promoted are anti-American and pro-import, will send jobs to China, and will make life harder for Americans. The Washington Post, in review of the very first shot of this Democrat energy agenda, H.R. 6, The Washington Post said, ``This is something Hugo Chavez would be proud of.'' My friends, we are not on a track to make life easier for Americans; we are on a track to make life very difficult for the American economy and the American consumer.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to stop a program that has been a failure. Let the record be clear. After more than 10 years of failed attempts to reintroduce Mexican wolves, it is now time to call an end to this program. I am speaking of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program operated by the Fish and Wildlife Service in New Mexico and Arizona. Since the 1998 release of these captive bred wolves into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery area, this program has attempted to restore a population of wolves into the area, all while providing no compensation to ranchers for their livestock losses and all in the face of nearly unified local public opinion against the program. Promises were made that the wolves would be restricted to the wilderness area of the Gila Mountains, but instead we have seen wolves as far away as Tularosa, New Mexico, almost 200 miles away. To date this program has spent nearly $14 million and as of today has only 58 wolves in the wild; $14 million, 10 years, and 58 wolves in the wild. Of these 58 wolves in the wild, we now are on a pace to remove 12 this year because they're problems. Chart number 1 that I brought up today highlights the increasing rate of removal of the wolves from the wild because they're killing too much livestock and they're endangering people and pets in the district that I represent. In 2005, the Service removed four problem wolves. In 2006, it removed eight. In 2007, we're on a pace to remove 12 wolves, 12 out of 58. If the Service has to remove 12 wolves this year, 20 percent of the wolves in the recovery area, how can anyone classify as a success a program where this many of the wolves are being a danger to ranchers and livestock? I would add that the wolves that are released into New Mexico are the wolves that have killed too many animals over in Arizona. So New Mexico gets the benefit of having the most dangerous wolves released into the Second District. Secondly, I would like to go to a chart that shows the horse, Six. In this shot, on the left side, Stacy Miller, 8 years old, is riding her horse, Six. This picture was taken 2 weeks before this picture. This picture on the right indicates her horse, Six, after the wolves finished with it. You see the ribs have been stripped completely clean. The hide is laying out here. That's 2 weeks after the picture was made. This is in the Second District of New Mexico. And for those of you who want the feel-good feeling of releasing the wolves into the wild, let us release them into your daggone area instead of the area of southern New Mexico, where they represent a danger to the people of the Second District. If you aren't willing to take them into your district, then why are you going to spend money to put them in our district and endanger our people? I would like to draw your attention to another tremendous concern, the Durango pack, particularly the female, AF924, which we speak about, is stalking the home of a young woman named Micha. Micha Miller, not the same, is pictured here. Micha Miller is about 100 yards from her front door pointing to a wolf print that is there in the dirt. What is startling about this picture is the gun which Micha is wearing while she goes about her chores. The Durango pack of wolves have been in and around Micha's house for so long that her parents insist that she carry this gun with her while she does her chores, works or plays in the yard. I am submitting for the Record a letter from Micha asking Congress to end this program that has put wolves in her front yard. Dear Congressman Pearce: I am Micha Noel Miller the 13 year old that has to carry a firearm when I go outside. My parents and I have had the Durango Pack (AF924 & AM 973) in our yard 5 times in the last 6 weeks. I hate the wolves in our yard because I feel that I am trapped in my house! I love to ride my horse, bike and walk around outside. Since the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf I can no longer due any of these things without being afraid. When we get home after dark my mom has to go feed our dogs and cats because I'm scared to go outside even though I know the wolves are 6 miles down the road and it doesn't make a difference, I'm still afraid they are coming up behind me. I'm tired of looking over my shoulder and being scared all the time. I have even resorted to carrying a firearm, I'm still frightened of the wolves when they come in my yard. I have gone hunting with my dad alot. We have called in coyotes and even a bear and I wasn't as scared as I was every time the wolves were in our yard. The coyotes and bears are more scared of you and will run away, but the wolves will just keep coming closer to you. They are not scared of humans!! I have had a wolf within 40 yards of me and I was so scared I couldn't move. My older sister, A.J., came out and scared the wolf off finally. I have nightmares about the wolves attacking my family & our pets. The Wolf Program says you cannot shoot a wolf if it is attacking your pet on private property. I don't understand how the wolf program expects people to stand by and let the wolves kill their pets and not do anything to stop them. They think the wolves are more important than anything else, including human life! Congressman Pearce, I wish there was some way you could get the wolf program to remove the wolves. I just want to have a normal childhood where I can go outside and play anytime I want without being armed and worrying about wolves being in my yard. Thank you for your help, Micha Miller. Mr. Chairman, we will hear folks that will follow me talk about how healthy wolves have never attacked humans; I would say that they're simply wrong. I will submit for the Record a list of recorded attacks by wolves on humans. These include healthy captive wolves, domestically bred wolves and wolf-dog hybrids. Wolf Attacks on Humans (By T. R. Mader, Research Division) It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many say such attacks have never occurred in North America. History states otherwise. Although attacks on humans are uncommon, they have occurred on this continent, both in the early years of settlement and more recently. Here is one report: New Rockford, DAK, March 7.--The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota. (Saint Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888) Here an account is reported which included an eyewitness and the family name. Some have reasoned the wolves were rabid. That is unlikely as these animals were functioning as a pack. A rabid wolf is a loner. Our research has never found a single historical account of packs of rabid wolves on this continent. Individual animals are the norm. Further, accounts of rabid (hydrophobic) animals were common in that day and were reported as such. The winters of 1886-1888 were very harsh. Many western ranchers went broke during these years. The harsh winter could have been a factor in the attack. Noted naturalists documented wolf attacks on humans. John James Audubon, of whom the Audubon Society is named, reported an attack involving 2 Negroes. He records that the men were traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried axes on their shoulders as a precaution. While traveling through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his axe and escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend lay scattered on the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered up the axes and returned home with the news of the event. This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J., and Bachman, J.; The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New York, 1851-1854) George Bird Grinnell investigated several reported wolf attacks on humans. He dismissed many reports for lack of evidence. Grinnell did verify one attack. This occurrence was in northwestern Colorado. An eighteen- year-old girl went out at dusk to bring in some milk cows. She saw a gray wolf on a hill as she went out for the cows. She shouted at the wolf to scare it away and it did not move. She then threw a stone at it to frighten it away. The animal snarled at her shouting and attacked her when she threw the stone at it. The wolf grabbed the girl by the shoulder, threw her to the ground and bit her severely on the arms and legs. She screamed and her brother, who was nearby and armed with a gun, responded to the scene of the attack and killed the wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal, barely full grown. Grinnell met this girl and examined her. She carried several scars from the attack. This attack occurred in summer about 1881. (Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire--Wolves and Wolf Nature, New York, 1897) In 1942, Michael Dusiak, section foreman for the Canadian Pacific Railway, was attacked by a wolf while patrolling a section of track on a speeder (small 4-wheeled open railroad car). Dusiak relates, ``It happened so fast and as it was still very dark, I thought an engine had hit me first. After getting up from out of the snow very quickly, I saw the wolf which was about fifty feet away from me and it was coming towards me, I grabbed the two axes (tools on the speeder), one in each hand and hit the wolf as he jumped at me right in the belly and in doing so lost one axe. Then the wolf started to circle me and got so close to me at times that I hit him with the head of the axe and it was only the wielding of the axe that kept him from me. All this time he was growling and gnashing his teeth. Then he would stop circling me and jump at me and I would hit him with the head of the axe. This happened five times and he kept edging me closer to the woods which was about 70 feet away. We fought this way for about fifteen minutes and I fought to stay out in the open close to the track. I hit him quite often as he came at me very fast and quick and I was trying to hit him a solid blow in the head for I knew if once he got me down it would be my finish. Then in the course of the fight he got me over onto the north side of the track and we fought there for about another ten minutes. Then a west bound train came along travelling about thirty miles an hour and stopped about half a train length west of us and backed up to where we were fighting. The engineer, fireman and brakeman came off the engine armed with picks and other tools, and killed the wolf.'' It should be noted that this wolf was skinned and inspected by an Investigator Crichton, a Conservation Officer. His assessment was that the animal was a young healthy wolf in good condition although it appeared lean. (``A Record of Timber Wolf Attacking a Man,'' JOURNAL OF MAMMOLOGY, Vol. 28, No. 3, August 1947) Common Man Institute, in cooperation with Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, has done extensive research on wolves and their history for several years. We have gathered evidence on wolf attacks which occurred in North America. A forester employed by the Province of British Colombia was checking some timber for possible harvest in the 1980s. He was met by a small pack of three wolves. The forester yelled at the wolves to frighten them away. Instead, the wolves came towards him in a threatening manner and he was forced to retreat and climb a nearby tree for safety. The wolves remained at the base of the tree. The forester had a portable radio, but was unable to contact his base, due to distance, until evening. When the call for help came in, two Conservation Officers with the Ministry of Environment were flown to the area by floatplane to rescue the treed forester. When the Conservation Officers arrived, the forester was still in the tree and one wolf, the apparent leader of the pack, was still at the base of the tree. The officers, armed with shotguns, shot at the wolf and missed. The wolf ran for cover and then started circling and howling near the two officers. After a couple missed shots, the wolf was finally shot and killed. The wolf tested negative for rabies. It appeared healthy in every respect, but was very lean. The Conservation Officers felt the attack was caused by hunger. (Taped Interviews and a photo of the wolf on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of North America.) This is but one example from British Colombia. Wolves overran Vancouver Island in the 1980s. Attacks became so common that articles were published in Canadian magazines documenting such attacks. (Copies available upon request.) Wolf attacks on humans have occurred in national parks, too. In August 1987, a sixteen-year-old girl was bitten by a wild wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. The girl was camping in the park with a youth group and shined a flashlight at the wolf. The wolf reacted to the light by biting the girl on the arm. That bite was not hard and due to the thick sweater and sweatshirt the girl was wearing, she sustained two scratch marks on her arm. The wolf was shot by Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies. (Interview with Ron Tozer, Park Naturalist for Algonquin Provincial Park, 7/25/88.) Well-known wolf biologist Dr. David Mech took issue with this attack stating it couldn't really be considered an authentic attack since the girl wasn't injured more severely. It was exactly nine years when such an attack would take place. Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where people are encouraged to ``howl'' at the wolves in hopes of a response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in ``howling'' at the wolves. They were answered by the howl of a solitary wolf. That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from Zach's wounds. The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the wolfleft. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and gasped ``Oh, my God!'' ``The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing.'' Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach received more than 80 stitches in his face. Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; ``Night of the Wolf'' READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.) Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn of the century in interior Alaska. David was playing in his village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and bit David in the face and started to carry him off. Other Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.) Paul Tritt, an Athabascan Indian, was attacked by a lone wolf while working a trap line. Paul was setting a snare, looked up and saw a wolf lunging at him. He threw his arm up in front of his face and it was bitten severely by the wolf. A struggle ensued. Tritt was able to get to his sled, grab a gun and kill the wolf. Nathaniel Frank, a companion, helped Tritt wash the wound with warm water. Frank took Tritt, via dog sled, to Fort Yukon to see a doctor. The arm healed, but Tritt never regained full use of it. Several years later, the arm developed problems and had to be amputated. (Interview with Paul Tritt, Venetie, Alaska, November, 1988) Two wolf attacks on humans occurred in 2000. Icy Bay, Alaska.--Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine- year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults, hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.) Vargas Island, British Colombia.--University student, Scott Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of Environment officials speculate the reason for the attack was due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.) This is but a brief summary of a few verifiable accounts of attacks on humans by healthy wild wolves in North American history. Biologists tell us that the wolves of Asia and North America are one and the same species. Wolf attacks are common in many parts of Asia. The government of India reported more than 100 deaths attributable to wolves in one year during the eighties. (Associated Press, 1985) This author recalls a news report in 1990 in which Iran reported deaths from attacks by wolves. Rashid Jamsheed, a U.S. trained biologist, was the game director for Iran. He wrote a book entitled ``Big Game Animals of Iran (Persia).'' In it he made several references to wolf attacks on humans. Jamsheed says that for a millennia people have reported wolves attacking and killing humans. In winter, when starving wolves grow bold, they have been known to enter towns and kill people in daylight on the streets. Apparently, in Iran, there are many cases of wolves running off with small children. There is also a story of a mounted and armed policeman (gendarme) being followed by 3 wolves. In time he had to get off his horse to attend to nature's call, leaving his rifle in the scabbard. A later reconstruction at the scene of the gnawed bones and wolf tracks indicated that the horse had bolted and left the man defenseless, whereupon he was killed and eaten. A Russian Linguist, Will Graves, provided our organization with reports of wolves killing Russian people in many areas of that country. Reports indicate some of the wolves were diseased while others appeared healthy. (Reports on file and available upon request.) Reports have also come from rural China. The official Zinhua News Agency reported that a peasant woman, Wu Jing, snatched her two daughters from the jaws of a wolf and wrestled with the animal until rescuers arrived. Wu slashed at the wolf with a sickle and it dropped one daughter, but grabbed her sister. It was then Wu wrestled with the animal until herdsmen came and drove the beast away. This incident occurred near Shenyang City, about 380 miles northeast of Beijing. (Chronicle Features, 1992) The question arises: ``Why so many attacks in Asia and so few in North America?'' Two factors must be considered: 1. The Philosophy of Conservation--Our forefathers always believed that they had the right and obligation to protect their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary between man and wolf for the wolf to survive. 2. Firearms--Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the taking of wolves. Milton P. Skinner in his book, ``The Yellowstone Nature Book'' (published 1924) wrote, ``Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals . . . come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle . . .'' Skinner was correct. The areas of Asia where wolf attacks occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no firearms or other effective means of predator control. But . . . ``Biologists claim there are no documented cases of healthy wild wolves attacking humans.'' What they really mean is there are no ``documented'' cases by their criteria which excludes historical accounts. Here's an example. Rabid wolves were a frightening experience in the early years due to their size and the seriousness of being bit, especially before a vaccine was developed. The bitten subject usually died a slow, miserable death. There are numerous accounts of rabid wolves and their activities. Early Army forts have medical records of rabid wolves coming into the posts and biting several people before being killed. Most of the people bitten died slow, horrible deaths. Additionally, early historical writings relate personal accounts. This author recalls one historical account telling of a man being tied to a tree and left to die because of his violent behavior with rabies after being bitten by a wolf. Such deaths left profound impressions on eyewitnesses of those events. Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no ``documented'' cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked what ``documented'' meant, he stated, ``The head of the wolf must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be rabid.'' Those requirements for documentation negate all historical records! As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, ``There are no `documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans.'' In order to be ``documented'' these unreasonable criteria must be met: 1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy. 2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life. 3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack. 4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists). That is a ``documented'' attack. Such criteria make it very difficult to document any historical account of a wolf attack on a human! Biologists assume when a wolf attacks a human, that there must be something wrong with the wolf. It's either been in captivity or it's sick or whatever. They don't examine the evidence in an unbiased manner or use historical tests. Historically, there are four reasons for wolf attacks on humans: 1. Disease such as rabies. 2. Extreme hunger. 3. Familiarity/Disposition--This is an either/or situation. Familiarity is the zoo setting, captive wolves, etc. Disposition is a particularly aggressive wolf which may not fear man as most wolves do. 4. In the heat of the chase and kill--This is where a hiker, trapper or whoever disturbs a fresh chase and kill by wolves. The person walks into the scene only to be attacked by the wolves. It is our belief that a predator's fear of man is both instinctive and learned behavior. For example, wolves raised as pets or in zoos are well documented to attack and kill humans. Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney, liver and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, on July 1, 1989, Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota. (Reports on file and available upon request.) Zoos carry abundant records of wolf attacks on people, particularly children. The child climbs the enclosure fence to pet the ``dog'' and is attacked. Zoos and domestic settings are unnatural in that they place man and wolf in close proximity and they become accustomed to each other. Consequently attacks occur. Today predator control is very restricted in scope, and as a result, attacks on humans by predators are becoming more common. In recent years, healthy coyotes in Yellowstone Park have attacked humans. Similar attacks have occurred in the National Parks of Canada. On January 14, 1991, a healthy mountain lion attacked and killed an eighteen-year-old high school senior, Scott Lancaster, in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The boy was jogging on a jogging path within the city limits of the town when the lion attacked and killed him. (Report on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of North America)

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

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, the following material are letters I have received from my constituents and other concerned citizens of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona regarding the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf. Since the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf in 1998, the residents of my Congressional District have been plagued by problems associated with the release. Not only do ranchers suffer economic hardship due to wolves preying on their livestock, but countless family pets have been lost including dogs and horses. As the wolves become less afraid of man every year, I fear they will eventually prey upon humans. To date, the program has yielded 58 wolves, 20 percent of which will be removed as problem animals, at a $14 million cost to the taxpayers. That is $242,000 spent per wolf. These are some of our wolf experiences in the past 7.5 years. I don't think we have had a decent nights sleep since this program began. 2003--Wolf notes Monday May 19 to Tuesday May 28. Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:42 p.m. Subject: wolves are back No sooner that I griped to the Game Commission's about the release of our old friend from the Campbell Blue pack, F 592 into the wilderness again that she shows up here again. John Oakleaf called last May 19 about 9 p.m. with the happy news that they were with our cows and calves. We were missing 2 calves since Friday and wolf tracks are everywhere but everything was OK when I checked this morning and this afternoon nothing but tracks. Life gets just a whole lot more complicated with them around. How many times can you say I told you so to the FWS, they can't stop believing that releasing heavily pregnant wolves into the Wilderness will keep them there, it doesn't and it hasn't and it never will. Changing the name just buffalo's the public into thinking there are new wolves out there. The new name for F 592 and her new mate was the Sycamore pack. The only good news is she should have had her puppies last week or maybe two weeks ago and she probably killed them if she traveled this far. Ivy, my 14 year old daughter rode her paint mare up to the top of the hill by the house this morning like she always does and met up with both wolves. She said they wouldn't leave her alone and squared off with her at about 30 feet away. She didn't want to turn her back on them so she shot and reloaded and shot her single shot 22 off in the air a couple times and they finally scuttled down the hill into Turkey Run in front of her. She was pretty excited and not a little scared when she came in. I on the other hand am livid and a lot scared. My kids shouldn't have to be held up by a pair of wolves on a ride \1/4\ mile from the house. Laura. Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:17 p.m. Subject: wolf update Rafter Spear 5-20&21 We caught them on the cows and calves last evening May 20, 2003 around 7 p.m. and they had them bunched up trying to get a calf out the calves were either crying or sucking, we were just in time. We ran them off all of 50 feet and started driving the cows down the canyon on foot. I left Matt with the cows and the 30-30 and went up the other canyon to check the other cows. On the way, I met Dan the wolf guy and told him to hurry up, the wolves were following Matt and he might just have to shoot one since they are following him so close. I stopped at the house to get a blanket for Miles since it was getting cold and he was asleep in the jeep, thank goodness. I also told the girls to saddle up and go help dad move those cows. Which they did. Over the ridge I found a bagged up cow with wolf tracks nearby and all the other cows were far enough up the other canyon and still all right with no sign of wolf activity around them. I went on to 74 and check the other cattle thankfully the wolves hadn't been there yet. By the time I got back to the turnoff to the house, where Matt and the girls left the cows, Matt was way off ahead on the road home and Dan was parked in the flat near the turnoff to our house with our cows. I picked up Matt and he said to go back and let him talk to Dan. He didn't apologize for yelling at him earlier but let it be known he didn't totally blame Dan for the situation. Dan said he was going to stay in the cows all night and we told him to come to the house and eat first. He said OK. He called an hour later {satellite phone} and said the wolves were in the calves again and he wasn't coming in to eat. By then it was 10 p.m. so I made him supper and coffee and we took it out to him. He said they were all over the cows and calves and howling at him because they were frustrated and he was firing rubber bullets at them. He only had enough light to set one trap though. Since he was OK we went home to sleep because after learning they were in the cattle the night before we pretty much stayed awake all night. Woke up at 4 a.m. finally got up at 4:30 and Dan showed up at 5:15 with some good news, he caught the male about 20 minutes before in the single trap he had managed to set the evening before. Apparently Dan has been improving as a trapper since our Dec. 99 experience with Campbell Blue pack which included F 592. Melissa, Ted Turners wolf biologist, was 3 hours away with a cage so we called our neighbor Jack Diamond and he sent his wife Kaye over with a kennel to put the trapped wolf in. We went back out and the female was still there with the male but not very close, it was breaking daylight by then. Dan gave the wolf a light sedative type drug so he would relax and not hurt himself in the trap. Matt went to check the cows in 74 where I had gone that night and I waited with Dan in case Kaye got there and Dan needed help loading the wolf. She did and Matt and Dan loaded him into the kennel right about the time Melissa showed up, so we sent that wolf home to Sevilletta. I made Dan keep Melissa's kennel in case 592 was caught. The female 592 ran off but I am sure she stayed somewhere nearby, Dan looked around for her and then tried to sleep a few hours during the day they aren't very active, thank goodness. The wolves had run him from calf to calf and canyon to canyon last night and he didn't get much rest I am just grateful it wasn't me but I may get a turn tonight. These livestock killers and problem wolves should not be turned out at all. 592 is the major stock killer of the pair and they were determined to get a calf. Dan didn't let them and they actually howled at him about it. But they did manage to bite at least two calves before he could hit them with rubber bullets which seemed to have little effect. We are missing two calves one since about last Friday and one since Monday but haven't found any wolf poop yet to see what is up with that. Probably won't be confirmed though. One was about a week old and one was born Saturday to a cow that has never lost a calf, Matt saw it Sunday evening and it was fine then. Mad as we are about all this at least we had competent help and we are grateful for that. Why the hell they are re- releasing stock killers is beyond me. It is plain dumb and only makes the program look bad. Laura. Update: wolves at the rafter spear 5-21-5-23 The last few days the wolf story has slowed down a lot but the aftermath is still ongoing. After trapping the male, the female took off and is about 6 miles to the SW at last flight on Thursday. There are traps everywhere in preparation for her return. I understand they are trapping for her because of the incident with Ivy not the calf killing. I don't care why but glad to hear there is a limit to how badly they can accost our kids. Nick Smith and Dan Stark also have a permit to shoot her if they have to. My problem is, this animal has a history here and has absolutely no fear it has menaced my daughter and followed my husband, who is not menaceable, or at least he thought he wasn't until he was followed by wolves he was not allowed to shoot. Together they killed and ate two calves before we knew they were here and two bitten calves, they are swelled up and crippled we have shaved measured and taken pictures. One has more bites, on the flanks, side and head but they are superficial, the calf is in quite a bit of distress from bruising but hopefully will be fine. I imagine the times when Dan heard the cows get up and shined the spotlight on them and saw the wolf, he stopped the attacks. The next day there was a calf with a swollen front knee in the same bunch, after shaving we found wolf bites on the front and back legs. The knee is hot and three times bigger than the other, the wound on it is superficial but the trauma caused the swelling is severe and this calf may be ruined. Both calves were in the bunch Dan guarded Tuesday night. If he hadn't been there would probably be 4 missing calves and four tight bagged cows. I am glad he got to experience the mayhem one pair of wolves can attempt to wreck in just 12 hours. On a side note there is another injury from a calf caught in a trap this morning, nobody is to blame for that, We are grateful to have the traps out, but still, another injury. There was a small bunch of 11 cows and calves that were harassed by the pair, not including the two that lost the calves. It has been some week. I have a dramatic picture for every day of the week. Yesterday the FS backburned from behind my house and it was pretty scary kind of like a volcano going off on your back door. The results should be good though. We had good representation from our government yesterday though. FWS, FS RITF and APHIS all on the porch at once. If we can find a piece of the space shuttle maybe NASA will come pay us a visit. It is hard to know where to begin since our emotions have run the gamut the past few days. Traps were set Tuesday after the male was caught and the female left for several days, she ended up on the Diamond Bar where Nick Smith tracked her for several days. He found one bitten calf probably from the trip over here a week prior. The calf was a month or two old so that is probably why they were still shy about killing it and staying there. The weekend was pretty good though, I went to town, 74 miles away on Saturday and bought groceries so the guys could be fed halfway decently while they worked and believe me they worked. Matt took Miles, he is 5 and clipped cages below the house and Dan checked his traps and made a 20 mile circle hiking into diamond creek on foot trying to get a signal. He was unsuccessful but Nick Smith found her signal later that night west of the Links camp on the Diamond Bar. On Sunday, Matt and Dan rode into Round Mountain and packed salt. That afternoon everyone rested a bit between checking traps and gardening, painting, watching Kristie and her boyfriend and various other normal pursuits. She was back here Monday morning. Dan woke up checked his equipment, got a signal and took off. When I checked cows that day I got a signal that seemed pretty strong right in the cows up 74 draw and Dan's truck was nearby. She pretty much stayed there all day with Dan tracking her along with Nick Smith who came in to help him. Dan came in that evening to make some phone calls and get something to eat. While he was on the phone, Matt and I went out and looked after the cows, one of us on either end of the bunch. She was there the whole time but we didn't have a directional antenna and felt our job was to look after the cows not the wolf. Monday night and Tuesday, yesterday. Dan was up all night with her, most of the cattle were west about a mile he felt OK about leaving her alone until light, really there wasn't much choice since she didn't seem to be doing anything but hanging out in that area and it was pretty thick. Near morning he could hear coyotes making a heck of a ruckus in the draw she was up and thought that it was weird since he has been taught all his life that such wolf/coyote fraternizing behavior was abnormal. He hadn't remembered or taken us seriously when we had told him the coyotes saved her life in the winter of 1999/2000 when she was here last. She had nearly starved to death until she started hanging around with the coyotes. Kristie who was 15 at the time had ridden up on her and the wolf followed her part way back to the house. Kristie was really mad because she could see the wolf was half dead from hunger and going bald. It was so cold that winter she would cry on the mountain behind the house and we would hear her at night. She was there for 5 months until she moved to the neighbors on Canyon Creek and killed her first calf. Later that summer she moved to the Adobe which is north of us met with her old mate and really went to killing cattle. Those coyotes saved her life though and she was used to being around them. Anyway, Dan hiked into the draw to see what was up as soon as there was enough light and a cow with a full bag of milk met him on his way in. The bad news is 592 was on a cow that had calved a day or two before and she had killed the calf. The coyotes had found her and were trying to steal the carcass from her. He ran both the wolf and the coyotes, off the calf, found two pieces and packed them to the truck and brought them in to the house put them in the barn and called Wildlife Services. As Dan has found out, sometimes there is just nothing you can do about the killing even when you are watching just as close as you can and not sleeping or eating to do it. The wolf has every advantage even if you do have the technology. We were very lucky he found any remains of this calf. The calf was killed by the wolf, Wildlife Services verified it the hemorrhaging was way too bad to be coyote and the bite marks measured out. At least the few that weren't eaten away. The calf was in two pieces it was a new heifer and had walked on it's feet quite a bit before it was killed. The cow was one we were concerned about because she had taken off to have the calf as they all do. Apparently she didn't hide well enough to fool the wolf. But as Dan can attest to, she was hidden from all human eyes pretty darned well. I had to go to Winston and get gas, so I took Dan and Nick some Orange juice that afternoon, Dan looked like crap and they were still tracking her. Dan was waiting for Nick to radio him and was trying to catch a catnap under the truck when I pulled up, so much for that nap. Johnny Anglin with Wildlife Services arrived the same time I did. We left them to their business about 30 min later. On my way home I found a brand new calf in the same bunch of cows that the wolf had been living with the past couple days. I took pictures of it in case the calf showed up on a milk carton in the next day or two. The cow was eating her afterbirth in the pictures so she was doing her best to keep baby safe instinct is an amazing thing. It was a big old baby too. The wolf was shot this evening, the poor little old thing was laid out on the tailgate. She had big feet, a big head and big teeth and an extremely full belly. She did have a really ugly unhealthy looking coat in my opinion for something that had only come out of captivity a few weeks earlier. It had done nothing but follow her own survival instinct as successfully as possible. This was a dumb mistake and a bad situation that didn't have to happen. We all spent a week living and breathing this tragedy that resulted in three dead calves, 3 wolf injured calves a bunch of stressed out people one trapped wolf and one pathetic shot wolf. It cost us a full week away from earning any income milling and we are way behind, broke and extremely tired. It cost Dan his peace of mind and taught him the hard way what we have to deal with. Thankfully he retained his integrity in spite of the mess and stress going on all around him. Thank goodness it is over for now. However I know the Francisco Pack will be re-released soon and am sure the same set of problems on a larger scale will be imminent as soon as that release takes place. Rereleasing habitual stock killers is poor management and is only asking for trouble. Unfortunately so many of the employees agree with the environmentalists that the wolves should be out on the ground no matter how many of our cows they kill so they just keep using problem and habituated wolves in the program. When the wolf kills too many cattle they just re-write their policy to allow them to leave it out longer and hurt us ranchers more. Update: June 5, Sherry Laney found a calf with a big bite in it's behind the bite is 1 and \1/2\ inches, wolf width. It is healing but mildly infected. I guess she wasn't so shy over there after all. June 2004. A single wolf has been moving around 74 draw all month. Matt found a small calf with his hind end totally mauled. We already had his mother here at the house, that cow never ever loses a calf so Matt had been looking for the calf, the calf found him actually ran to him bawling for help. We cut away the dead and infected flesh and found bites in all the same places as last years calves, WS came out but they didn't do a thorough job examining it. I was gone so nobody insisted on a thorough job like I would have. I did it myself later. This is a wolf attack the bites measure out and the injuries are in the same place and there were wolf tracks. People don't realize wolves are not efficient killers and they aren't at all humane about what they do. They simply get something down and start eating and the prey dies of shock and blood loss. It is very difficult for someone who raises livestock to see their hard work tortured to death in this manner, especially the pregnant cows and the baby calves. This wolf was inexperienced and the calf got away. He nearly died of the infection though and weighed about 150 pounds less than the other calves. I guess when he finally went to the market he was considered a wolf friendly beef. Summer 2005 wolf tracks up and down 74 draw again. Watching all the cattle all the time no time for school or anything else. Kristie got married in July so we are glad the wolves didn't show up until after the wedding anyway. No kills that we know of except to a bear which we were allowed to take care of so that ended that problem. October 2006. At least two separate wolves moving in and out of the area. These wolves do not have tracking collars. FWS will not investigate. WS showed up and documented tracks so we can do something if there is a kill. Nothing so far that we were able to find just a lot of lost time and a huge amount of fuel again. Bought two Pyreneese pups in September, we can't afford to feed them but we have to do something progressive. We have also purchased water rights and are going to the huge expense of putting an irrigation system into the old fields on this place so we can bring cows into the deeded land if necessary and wolves get into them again. We have to be able to defend our cattle and the rules only allow us to do so if they are on deeded land. We have also built kennels at a 4000 dollar cost that we also cannot afford but we can't allow wolves to come into the deeded land and kill our valuable cow dogs. We can't operate in this rough country without them. December 26, 2006. Pyraneese puppies who are 5 months old now gone. The other one is hiding under the porch and there are wolf tracks everywhere. We had them penned up in the yard but they found a way out. The kids are devastated. We looked everywhere but the puppy is gone. The wolf just carried him off. All that dog food we have in him wasted all those kid hugs and effort just eaten up like it was nothing. We will have to replace him, his brother can't be alone with these animals around. I guess we just have to get used to living with death and destruction and still we are supposed to be happy people and living under the requirements of the law. It is sickening. 2007. June 11 on our way home from town we saw three wolves, one had a collar but two did not. They were in Brian Carters cows on the side of the road just about two miles from the Poverty creek subdivision. They were just laying in the tall grass with the cattle waiting for it to get a little darker. Matt and I ran them off the cows and called our neighbors to tell them the wolves were in the cows. It didn't help, the next day we went over with our monitor and there was no signal for the collared animal so he is probably has a non functioning collar. This is a whole other pack FWS do not believe exist. Found wolf poop two different piles of it. One had calf teeth in it. FWS never even bothered to come out or do anything at all and there is no telling where these animals are now. Our closest neighbor Jack Diamond has the horse killing aspen pack on him in his roughest pasture they are having pups there and are now feeding his yearlings to the pups. I went over and gave moral support while they confirmed the first kill that the Diamonds were able to find. They are out there every day but like I said it is rough country and they won't know how many they lost until it is time to ship the yearlings. Nearly 2 year old heifer eaten alive at water tank on Diamond's place. All three wolves involved only the male has a strike towards removal. The rule doesn't say only one wolf gets the strike. FWS are cheating the people out here of proper and fair management to leave killer wolves out on the ground. May/June 07. I once again have two sets of wolf tracks and no signal in our cow pasture. I am watching the cattle like a hawk. The Boy Scout camp has moved in and that seemed to have driven the animals out for now. Now I am just worried sick about the kids so I warned, mentioned is a better word the wolves to the scoutmasters. How do you tell them that wolves that attacked a dog in front of an 8 year old girl are here within a half days walk of your camp. I didn't tell them all that, didn't want them to feel uncomfortable out here. I want them out here while it is still possible, within a year or two, nobody will be comfortable camping out here with kids. So I told them to come and use my phone for anything they needed and I am checking in on them every day or two. It is nerve wracking but they are making quite a bit of noise so things should be ok. We are exhausted and financially strapped from all the re- vamping of our operation and we are demoralized by all the un-collared wolves we are seeing and finding tracks for. Mostly it is so disheartening that nobody even cares about our neighbors and ourselves. That we are all going broke supporting this program and those kids running it are getting huge salaries and don't end up losing anything, ever. Why us why is it our responsibility to shoulder this program's foolishness? Why are we being allowed to go bankrupt? Why can't I finish my college education? Why can't my youngest daughter go off to school too? She feels like she needs to be here to help us keep our home and help us keep our family ranch in business. My son never got to be raised at the creek playing with minnows and frogs like his sisters did before wolves. He hasn't gotten to ride with his dad hardly at all either, he just turned 9 and his whole life has been affected by wolves. At least our girls were able to be raised out here the way we intended. Our son is locked into a yard and has to be watched constantly. I have to attend every single meeting I can scrape together gas money for, and we can't afford to any more. But if we don't go, FWS and the groups that support this program and who get paychecks to go to these meetings will come up with another plan to harm us further. I pray every night that this program will go away, before it is too late for us before it is too late for the game and the whole country is too dangerous to live in the way it used to be. Sincerely Laura.

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