Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his answer, and I did hear him say that those are valid contracts, but I would point out and I'm reading now from a January 17 bill where the majority in their H.R. 6 bill, the Washington Post editorial says, ``The House would break this deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.'' And it says, ``The main problem with the House bill is that hitting up oil companies is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. The Nation needs to accelerate the development of less-carbon-intensive fuels,'' and it declares in this that the heavy-handed attack of H.R. 6 is something that would be welcome in Russia and Bolivia and other countries but not in the U.S. And so my point is that the gentleman's party has already decided that contracts are not especially valid, but I would simply say that if contracts are valid contracts, then they should be valid throughout the spectrum of vision that the gentleman has.

Mr. PEARCE. If I may reclaim my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk a little bit about what we as Members of the House owe the American public, what the people who elect this House deserve and expect. The first thing they deserve and expect is honest conversation. They deserve fiscal responsibility. They deserve openness and transparency. They deserve fairness from us. Now, the bill in front of us, the appropriation bill in front of us tonight, spends about $4.3 billion more than the same type of bill last year. That is almost a 14 percent increase. If you look at where the increase is, about $4 billion is in first responder grants. Now, that would seem on the surface of it to be adequate and fair. That is something that the American people might like. The first responders do expect and deserve good treatment. But when we understand from the past appropriation processes that there is almost $5 billion left in this fund for first responders to draw from that they have not yet taken out from past appropriations and we go ahead and add $4 billion on top of it now, it causes the American public to say, Why? What is it that we are getting? The American public will stand for things that seem right and seem justified, but in order to get the $4 billion to put into this fund, our friends on the other side of the aisle are increasing taxes, the second largest tax increase in American history. Now, how is that important? I will tell you that the Governor of New Mexico said it best: Lowering taxes creates jobs. The corollary of that is also true; raising taxes depresses jobs. Raising taxes stagnates the economy. It does away with the vitality that any country is looking for. So, when Ireland wanted to improve its economic state, it began to lower taxes. When it lowered taxes on internal corporations, they had a surge of growth. But when they lowered taxes on external corporations, companies began to move to Ireland and create a grand, booming economy and new jobs in Ireland, and for the first time in the Irish history they have moved their economy tremendously forward because they cut taxes. Now, what we are doing in order to create the $4 billion in just this one appropriations bill is to raise taxes. We are going to stagnate the American economy. We have created an about 7.7 million jobs in the past 2 or 3 years. It has been an excellent economy, one that started off in a recession, the recession that started at the end of the Clinton years, and that recession then moved forward. And 9/11 shocked us into the recession again; the Global Crossing scandal, the Enron scandal, the WorldCom scandal that shocked us into recession even further. But the Bush administration and this Congress passed two successive tax cuts which began to revitalize the economy, and that revitalization is now at risk because of the way that the Democrats in this Congress are willing to put $4 billion into this one fund that has a surplus of over $5 billion in it. Now, the lady from North Carolina is taking a small attack on this whole increase. She's saying, quite simply, let's just don't pay the attorneys $1.2 million that they received. A $1.2 million increase is not needed for attorneys. The people in this country need good-paying jobs, they need a good economy, they need a sound economy and a good government, and that good government is being denied in the guise of providing another $4 billion into a fund that still has a surplus of over $5 billion to it. So, tonight I would recommend that we all look carefully at the lady from North Carolina's amendment, and that we support it as the first increment of many in reducing the cost of this particular bill. The deficit spending for the government doesn't occur one large lump at a time, it occurs one small piece at a time. And the lady from North Carolina has adequately stated, let's just not do it. Let's level fund. Let's fund at the same amount that we gave last year. That is a reasonable thing for the American people to want to see. The American people deserve and expect this fiscal responsibility, for us to spend the money as if it were our own because they are trusting us with it. They put us in a position of stewardship over that money, and yet here we are throwing the money into a fund that is not being spent adequately yet. And in order to get more money to put in there, we are raising taxes.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, we must utilize every resource available while fighting the Global War on Terror. Currently, we are fighting two major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which are critical to implementing democracy and peace throughout the Middle East. In both these areas we have a common enemy that continues to increase its forces. Recent reports have shown that Iran is supplying arms to both the terrorists in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Every night on the news we see the price we pay in a two front war against a sinister and studious enemy. It is difficult enough to fight an insurgency inspired by hatred, let alone an enemy supported by a sovereign nation such as Iran. Reports of Iranian weapons and funds surfacing both in Iraq and Afghanistan are indicators that Iran is willing to use other countries to attack American interests without having to sacrifice their own sons and daughters. We are fighting a cowardly enemy which uses others to do its dirty work for them. This is state sponsored terrorism and we must take steps to cut off the resources they use to fund our enemies. In addition, under the guise of energy development, Iran continues a program that puts them closer and closer to developing weapons grade plutonium. I have severe reservations allowing this program continue until Iranian President Ahmadinejad can unequivocally prove that he does not have intentions of someday creating and using a nuclear warhead against the United States, Israel, Europe or other Allies. This legislation is crucial in the Global War on Terror because it is a tangible indicator to Iran, and all other nations which harbor or sponsor terrorist tactics in any form, that we will not allow the violence to escalate any further. By preventing the sale of F-14s in whole or part to Iran we will be cutting off the supply of arms that may someday be used to kill American soldiers. I congratulate my colleague and Congressional neighbor from Arizona for her hard work and dedication to this issue. It is important for our safety as a country, as well as the world's freedom from terrorism, that we cut off the supply of F-14 parts to Iran. I call to my friends on both sides of the aisle for overwhelming bipartisan support of this legislation.

Mr. PEARCE

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

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

Mr. PEARCE. In its present form.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, we are moving to recommit this bill in order to provide an amendment that would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from using eminent domain to acquire land, water, or interest in land or water under section 3 of the bill. Now, most of you, like me, received probably the hardest phone calls from both Democrats and Republicans alike when our Supreme Court made the Kelo decision which said that local entities could, in fact, use eminent domain to acquire property from private individuals. This motion to recommit is extremely simple. We do not want the Park Service to use eminent domain to take over property. I sat as the chairman of the National Park Subcommittee in the Resources Committee for all of the last year and part of the year before that, and I will tell you that the most disturbing things that happened in committee were that we heard testimony from people around the Appalachian Trail where the willing seller that is referenced in the bill, the underlying bill today, the willing seller legislation was in fact used to threaten, to intimidate, to cause people to become ``willing sellers'' against their will. Right now, I am working on the Continental Divide Trail, which goes north to south from the Mexico border to the Canadian border. Since 1978, it did not have one mile that had actually come from private landowners in New Mexico. I believe in the park system and I believe in the trail system of the United States Government, but I do not believe that the government should or could be able to intimidate, to harass, to cause people to become willing sellers. And that is my fear in this legislation, that it does not go far enough and is not explicit enough. I have expressly worked to get all of the landowners through the Second District of New Mexico, including 22 miles on the Acoma Indian Reservation, where they did not want any Federal presence, no people coming across their land, and now they are excited about the prospect. So I support the concept of preservation, and I support the concept of our national parks, but I will fight to the last breath to protect the private property rights of the people in this country, because it is a constitutional right. The right to private property is the basis of our economic and, therefore, all other freedoms. So, Mr. Speaker, we simply say that in this bill ``the willing seller'' is not hard enough; that we want assurance that eminent domain will not be used to acquire land, water, or interests in land or water under section 3 of the bill.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I would. And I thank the gentleman. As he's talking about this new willingness of Iraqis to report suspicious behavior, I would remind my colleagues that it was our bill, my bill that was introduced, that simply said that you cannot be sued in American courts for reporting suspicious behavior, that you cannot be terrorized in our own courts of law for reporting the same sort of behavior that you're talking about being reported in Iraq creating stable responses, stability in the country. And yet, we had 121 of our Democrat colleagues vote against that legislation. They voted with the terrorists to say, you can sue Americans in court for reporting suspicious behavior. I think that shows the difference between the Republicans in this Congress. All Republicans voted with the American citizens to limit those capabilities. But the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats are still soft on security. They're soft on terrorism, and they're soft on funding the troops who are fighting the battle. And I just wanted to, your comments about the Iraqis now turning in evidence, bringing those actions to our attention, caused me to remember that bill on the floor of the House where we actually had a vote here, and the Democrats voted, 121 of them, to let terrorists sue us in our own courts. I'd yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. PEARCE. I would just remind the Members of the Chamber that we are a part of the Republican Study Committee, that's the RSC here. We have the Web site, www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc. So take a look at the things that we are talking about, the things that we all believe in. It's the conservative arm of the Republican Party. I think the first thing that we would want to talk about is basically what is happening in Iraq. If the gentleman doesn't mind, I would like to use one of the charts here. If we take a look at the charts, these are reconstruction projects, but also they mirror very closely the conflict, the different fights that are going on. If you look at this whole part of the country, this entire section is actually pretty secure. This al-Anbar province out in the west has been the subject of a lot of discussion. Baghdad, of course, is very near the center part. You can see where we are spending more money on reconstruction there and up north. We can see, also, that if we have the reports of firefights, the reports of IEDs, we would see the same sort of clustering there. People ask, well, why did the British leave? The British were serving in the southern section here. The British actually had secured their area that had been turned over to the Iraqis. I think all of our troop commanders are telling us that when we have Iraq secure, that when the Iraqi forces are in charge of their own security, both police and then the army, then we are going to see troops start coming home. That's exactly what happened. Now, the risk that we run, I would cover that just briefly, Iran touches on the eastern side of the country. If we pull out, Iran will take over these massive oil fields in the southern part of Iraq. That's going to destabilize even more the price of gasoline. Our colleagues were just talking about it. Really, the price of gasoline is quite simple. I majored in economics in college, and I did so because economics is very easy. It's just got two moving parts: supply and demand. If you will consider the demand for our product, the demand for gasoline, we have 300 million people today. That is significantly more than what we had in the 1950s when the price of gas was low. So our demand is increasingly higher, but also our supply is becoming more restricted. Then we look at the worldwide picture, and you understand that the Chinese, if you overlay the price of oil, the price of natural gas, the price of gasoline with the demand in China for the last 20 years, you would see that the demand of the Chinese is almost exactly mirroring, is exactly causing our high price of gasoline right now. There is a compelling fact today; we heard the same statistics that just a couple years ago the price of gasoline was actually $2.47, today it is about $3.29. And, again, the law of supply and demand, the Middle East, that OPEC group is actually cutting their exports. They are trimming back their exports. They are cutting the supply. It is driving the price up. It is actually quite simple. Our friends on the other side of the aisle in charge of governing the Nation really should stop and consider these two moving parts, supply and demand. They have got two hands, maybe they could write one on one hand and write one on the other hand and try to keep them organized, because they make this far more complex than what it actually is. So what we are doing in Iraq is trying to stabilize the Middle East, because I would guarantee everyone in the Chamber that if Iraq fails, if we leave Iraq, Iraq falls. We were just in Israel about 2 months ago, and the Israelis said that you are going to lose Saudi Arabia. That is, the terrorists are going to go in and topple that regime, they are going to go in and take over that government. Now, Saudi Arabia has about 60 percent of the world's known reserves; that is the reserves of normal petroleum. So that would destabilize between losing the production in Iraq, losing the production in Saudi Arabia. And, don't forget Kuwait, because the general assumption is that Kuwait and Jordan would fall. Then you see a picture where the worldwide oil market would destabilize. At that point I think that we would really have to worry about the security of the entire world economy. And if you worry about the security of the world economy, you also have to worry about social stability, because the terrorists know they are not going to beat us militarily. That has never been their attempt. Their attempt is to destabilize us economically. That was the reason they hit the World Trade Center in 1993. They came back and hit it in 2001. And they knew that if they could strike at that vibrant nerve center of the U.S. economy, they would destabilize us economically. If they destabilize us economically, they destabilize us politically. So right now we are finding that actually our surge of troops, those troops are mostly in the Baghdad area, because how goes Baghdad, that is how goes Iraq. The governing structure is in Baghdad. If we secure Baghdad, then we secure Iraq. If we do not secure Baghdad, we do not secure Iraq. We put about 110,000, 120,000 troops into Baghdad. We are also joining those up with about 100,000 Iraqi troops that are there already. Both of those numbers are increasing, and I will tell you that we are hearing already that the violence in Baghdad itself is beginning to diminish significantly. Again, we can take some of the instability that is moving out to the outlying provinces if we first secure the capital, if we can have those essential government functions that cause the people to believe that their society is intact, and that even though there are difficulties that they can get their garbage service, they can get their water service or whatever. Those are the underlying factors that we are seeing playing right now in the troop surge. I think that everyone believes by September or October, we are going to know the outcome of the surge. It doesn't mean we will know the outcome of the battle, it doesn't mean we will know the outcome of the war. But I think that it is essential that we fund our troops, that we quit playing games. We have consistently asked our leaders, the majority leaders, if you do not like the war, that is a credible position. Just come to the floor, have the vote about withdrawing the troops. Do not play games with the funding. Do not play games with our troops in harm's way. But they refuse to have that vote. Instead, what they do is they put the money here and they put conditions. Now, I know that college football coaches and pro football coaches get fired every day. It is because they become too predictable. Their offense is too well known. When an offense is well known, the defense knows exactly where to play. Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle want us to give our playbook; they want us to put into legislation the benchmarks that will determine if we go or leave, if we come home from Iraq or if we stay in Iraq. And we will tell you, that simply tells our opponents where to go to defeat us. If the benchmarks are in writing, then that is going to give our playbook to the opposition. We as the American Congress, we as the United States Congress, owe it to the men and women in uniform, who are in harm's way, to support our troops or to please bring them home. I was in Vietnam at a period of time when the Nation began to turn its back on its troops. I was in Vietnam at a time when they began to play games with the funding. I was in Vietnam during the time that Jane Fonda went to the North and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I will tell you that I have personal experience that this is not the way that we want to treat our young men and women who are in harm's way. So we owe it to our troops to have the vote on the supplemental budget that we are discussing tonight, because the future of our country depends on it. But more than that, the lives of our young men and women rest today, today, on what we do. So I yield back to the gentleman from Texas. I have other comments, but I see we have a lot of people here tonight. I thank him for the opportunity to speak and thank him for taking his leadership and giving leadership to this great subject, because it is the right thing for us to do. It is the right thing for America to do. It is the right and honorable thing for this Congress to do, to give the funding to our troops or bring them home. Those are the two choices we have in Congress. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank both gentlemen from Georgia for their work, either plus or against this amendment. I offer to support the amendment tonight, have helped cosponsor it. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from Georgia has done. Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply requires secure forms of identification. It can be any form. It can be a foreign passport, a U.S. passport. It can be a Citizenship and Immigration Services photo ID card, a Social Security card with some State or Federal ID. These secure forms of identification are relatively easy for legal residents and citizens to accomplish and to acquire. They are relatively difficult for illegals to acquire. So I think that the gentleman's amendment is very appropriate. We are finding that more and more services that should go to legal American citizens are being soaked up by those who come here illegally. In the Second District of New Mexico, we are on the southern border of the United States bordering Mexico, and I will tell you that our hospitals are overwhelmed. Good tax-paying citizens come to me and ask why is it that one's daughter whose husband and she make $30,000 or $40,000 a year just paid $5,000 to have a baby and the girl in the bed next to her got it for free? We are finding that this is the case over and over. And so requiring this fund to establish some sort of legality, some sort of legal residency or citizenship is not an onerous burden, and in fact it is one that most Americans would expect that we would accomplish. I will tell you that the underlying bill, in establishing one of the trust funds, is a very problematic situation. We heard the left declare when they came into power in this Congress that they would spend the profits of companies like Exxon, and now we are seeing them actually reach down and pluck those profits away, put them into a fund, and with no discretion, no declaration of how those funds are to be spent. I don't think that is what Americans want. And just so we understand the real process, this same technique of establishing funds that simply appear in the authorization bills is also accomplished in H.R. 6 and the Hardrock Mining bill. Those attempts to reach out and take money from corporations to spend it because the left declared that to be their intent when they came to power in this House of Representatives. So my friends, I would suggest that making a requirement for U.S. citizenship is not too much. I would say also we have received a lecture tonight about hypocrisy, we on the Republican side. I would comment that just earlier today we have heard promises from the other side that they were not going to have secret votes to increase the debt limit, and yet even today almost $1 trillion in debt limit was increased without a vote, without the transparency that we were promised. We were promised under the new majority earmark reform, and within the last couple of weeks we have seen a little $23 million earmark slid into the bottom of a bill with no ability to even comment about it. We were told that we are going to protect the American soldiers, and yet we see funding mechanisms that take money from the operational troops and placed only for training. So my friends, when we are told to trust us, that we will create this fund and we will write the specifications later, I say in New Mexico we have a saying ``trust your neighbor but brand your cows.'' This bill with the Affordable Housing Fund is no cow. It is mostly bull. But we had still better brand it and watch for what we are doing.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would point out that the REAL ID Act is not the only source of documents, that people who are here illegally should have some sort of U.S.--

Mr. PEARCE. I would point out that one similarity, that we are willing to treat them similar with for-profit businesses is reach down and extract profits away from them in the way that we're going to do under the Hard Rock Mining Act, and the way we are going to do under H.R. 6. And then these three assistances, and I suspect more instances than this, we are actually fulfilling a promise of the left to take the profits of large companies and spend it. And that to me is an abomination in this free enterprise society.

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are not trying to engage the REAL ID Act at all, what we are trying to engage is a situation that exists right here in Arlington County, Virginia, the immigration status of applicants for local housing subsidies is not checked. Illegal immigrants are allowed to receive taxpayer-funded rent assistance. That is the thing that we are trying to address. Also, the chairman says that somehow these firms are not the same as other firms that get profits. The truth is that they were commissioned as government-sponsored enterprises, but then the government sponsorship was pulled away. They are simply for-profit businesses. The government does not anymore, and if the gentleman from Texas will yield, are you saying that the government still backs up, with full faith and credit of the United States Government, to the transactions of these----

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. It's an interesting discussion that we have here about taxation policy. As you know, this budget is going to increase the taxes to the American consumer more than any single time in our history. But why should that matter? Why is that important? I will tell you that the Governor of New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson, a staunch Democrat said it best, when he is passing tax increases for New Mexico, tax cuts create jobs. He said Democrats should get over it. They should understand the economic principle. If tax cuts create jobs, then the reverse is true, that tax increases are going to outsource jobs. So what we have here is one of the largest outsourcing of jobs in American history. Now, if you would like an example of it, you could take a look at Irish miracle. We are all familiar with an Irish economy that was slugging along, so what they did is they cut taxes to their internal companies. If you are internal, you paid like an 8 percent or maybe a 10 percent tax. If you were an external company, maybe someone outside of Ireland, they still paid a 36 percent tax. Their economy began to boom. At that point the European Union said, you know, you Irish people have got it wrong. You must change the tax structure. We are not going to listen to this. We are not going to allow for it. The Irish, being the Irish, looked at it and said, yes, you are right. Our tax structure is wrong. So they lowered the taxes to all the external companies. They did increase to 12 percent their internal companies, lowered everyone to 12 percent, and that boom continued tremendously. New Mexico had a boom after we began to cut taxes. The United States government, people would ask me, why did we cut taxes in a period of deficit spending? We cut taxes to grow the economy. It has worked, and over the last 3 or 4 years we have created over 7 million jobs in this economy, which has been spurred on by tax cuts. So what our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is it does not matter about the health of the economy. It does not matter about the jobs that we are going to outsource. We are going to tax people more in this country. That's the fundamental difference between Republicans, Democrats, and I would bring that to the attention of our audience today and ask you to oppose the Democrat budget that increases taxes more than any other budget in American history.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Showtime Studios Dance Team, Showtime Storm from Alamogordo, New Mexico on their success at the United States All Star Federation's World Competition (USASF). This is a competition where young people travel to Disney World to compete against the best dancers from around the world. These 18 students from the Showtime Studio's senior hip hop team showed their diligent work ethic and amazing talent by advancing to the world competition through a series of regional and national dance championships. The hip hop dance team set a high standard for others to follow since 2007 was the first year USASF held the Senior Hip Hop Gold Championship title. The team has overcome adversity on their journey to the championship and I commend them for their dedication and success. I am proud to recognize the Showtime Storm dance squad for their accomplishments. I specifically want to congratulate, Kelsey Osterholm, Perla Alarcon, Michael Barber, Adam Berg, Samantha Burch, Marco Cardiel, Erica Clausen, Samantha Collins, Bryan Harris, Vanessa Hernandez, Raynee Hopkins, Shawnna Jett, Kristina Joyner, Macey Marquardt, Ashley Pacheco, Sarah Santos, Whitney Weise, Lexi Wright, assistant coach Vickie Marquardt, and head coach Lorrie Black. It is my honor as a Member of Congress to have the chance to congratulate this outstanding group of young people on an achievement their hard work has earned them. Congratulations to each of you, your family, your community, and your congressman are all proud of your achievements.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area Act. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by my state's Senior Senator, Mr. Domenici. Last year, the Senate passed this legislation but the House was unable to act on it before we recessed. It is my hope by introducing the bill today we can push the process along and get this legislation done this year. The Fort Stanton Cave is a tremendous national resource, which includes a cave that has calcite flowing all along the cave formations. This truly rare resource deserves our protection. As the Representative of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, I am aware of how amazing cave formations can be and how valuable they are to educate and inspire our children. This legislation does the following: (1) creates a Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave Conservation Area to protect, secure and conserve the natural and unique features of the Snowy River Cave; (2) instructs the BLM to prepare a map and legal description of the Snowy River Cave, and to develop a comprehensive, long-term management plan for the cave area; (3) authorizes the conservation of the unique features and environs in the cave for scientific, educational and other public uses deemed safe and appropriate under the management plan; (4) authorizes the BLM to work with State and other institutions and to cooperate with Lincoln County to address the historical involvement of the local community; (5) protects the caves from mineral and mining leasing operations. This cave is a valuable resource that in time will share with us its many wonders, but to do that we must preserve this resource for the future. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting these important protections.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot enhance or extend the word pictures given by my colleague from Oregon and would, therefore, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 217 recognizes the flooding of Celilo Falls in Oregon. In 1957, the U.S. Corps of Engineers constructed the multipurpose Dalles Dam to provide much needed hydropower and irrigation for the Pacific Northwest. As a result of the dam, the falls were inundated, changing the way four tribes fished at the location. This resolution recognizes the 50th anniversary of that change. It is my understanding that this resolution will not be used for future litigation claims and legislative purposes, so we have no objection. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PEARCE. I would appreciate engaging in a brief colloquy regarding H. Res. 217. Is it the understanding of the gentleman from Oregon that the enactment of this resolution will not be used for litigation or legislative purposes?

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by complimenting Representative Larsen for the hard work he has put into this legislation and for proposing wilderness only in his district. This would seem to be a basic sensible courtesy, but seems to be lost on some of his fellow Democrats. With that said, the minority is opposed to this bill. During the markup in the Natural Resources Committee, the minority pledged its willingness to work with the majority, but this offer must have fallen upon deaf ears. In the future, we hope the majority can at least contact us after we make such a gesture. Much of the area that would be designated by this bill does not qualify as wilderness. The 1964 Wilderness Act states explicitly that wilderness areas should be primitive and untrammeled by man. Yet the Wild Sky Wilderness Act includes several roads, a bridge, numerous culverts, and other man-made developments. The proposal also includes areas with mining patents and lands identified by the Forest Service for timber harvest. Moreover, according to the Forest Service, road corridors within the wilderness are too narrow to ensure proper road maintenance and safe passage by travelers. Without sufficient corridors, landslides or other natural disturbances could permanently block or destroy the road. Restrictions associated with the wilderness areas prohibit the use of mechanized or motorized activities, which would surely be needed to prepare a road. It is disingenuous for the majority to tout the public's ability to visit the Wild Sky area without protecting one of the main roads that would allow access to the Wild Sky area. We are willing to work with the majority and have indicated our willingness to do so. In the future we hope that the majority would work with us. Wilderness areas affect local communities, are permanent, and many times have ramifications or unintended consequences. We ask the majority to take these bills seriously and study them in good faith before hurriedly passing them on to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.