Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize one of our new Members, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 1 minute.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, there are three titles in this bill. First deals with ways and means problems, those problems that have to do with taxes. We can have legitimate discussions on whether to tax or not tax corporations. The third title deals with the renewable resources. Being from New Mexico, I think we should be exploring and investing in renewable resources. New Mexico is one of the few States that would be self- sufficient in wind and solar. We are making heavy investments in nuclear energy and in biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal. I am very committed to the section that the Democrats have on title III. The one I have deep reserves about is title II. In that title, page 10 says a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease. Mr. Speaker, what is occurring here is the piece that is referred to in yesterday's Washington Post editorial where the Democrats are described as being heavy handed. The stability of contracts that would be recognized and welcomed in Russia and Bolivia, I do not think that our friends on the other side of the aisle intended to do this. Therefore, I recommend that we kindly send this back to committee and we could take out these offenses. Mr. Speaker, the quality of a nation and its government depends on the full faith and credit of that government. This government depends on making promises that are not written to its seniors, to its veterans. Those promises are honored. But it also makes contractual promises, promises where companies are spending billions of dollars based on the contractual agreement that is there. If we are going to find a way out of those foolish mistakes made by the Clinton administration, I agree we need to do it, but we do not need to do it in the way that they did in Venezuela and Bolivia and Russia. We need to go about it in a proper way. If we are going to punish people who did not voluntarily change a contract, we are no better than those countries that nationalize their industries.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for 1 minute.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not energy policy, it is industrial policy. The San Francisco wing of the Democrat Party is switching from blaming America first to blaming the American way of life first for all the ills they conjure up. San Francisco Democrats want to tell the American people they should be running their cars off wind, yet I will tell you that there is only one institution in this Nation that runs off wind and that is the hot air that fuels this institution. Mr. Speaker, energy is the largest business in the world, not because governments make it so but because 6 billion people demand the freedom and quality of life that its use provides. When America went from horses to cars it was because cars were more efficient and faster than horses, not because government deemed they should be driving in cars. When America went from dirt roads to asphalt it was because asphalt was the more efficient surface that could withstand rain and snow, not because government told people to use it. Just because we say people should be using wind and solar to power their cars does not mean it is going to occur. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would observe that it is my intent to reserve the balance of my time until the closing of the entire bill, if that would assist the gentleman in planning his time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I believe we can all agree that we must work to increase opportunities to enhance the education of America's men and women. Education provides the needed foundation for helping Americans become productive working citizens. This makes our country stronger and more competitive both now and in the future. Because I believe we must open the doors to higher education while ensuring taxpayers are protected, I plan to vote in favor of H.R. 5. This bill cuts subsidized student loan interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over a period of 5 years and includes offsets within the federal budget to ensure the budget deficit is not increased. This makes the bill a ``win-win'' situation for both college graduates and taxpayers. However, the bill before us contains serious weaknesses--weaknesses that could have been avoided had the Majority allowed for a more open discussion both in committee and on the House floor. The bill lacks in its ability to help individuals who need to fund their education today. To truly increase college enrollment and affordability, students need to have increased access to financial aid while they are attending college. Last year Republicans brought to the House floor more comprehensive legislation that created Academic Competitiveness and Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant programs to supplement the existing Pell Grant program. I supported this measure as well as an increase in student Stafford loan limits from $2,625 to $3,500 a year for first year students and $3,500 to $4,500 a year for second year students. These measures were signed into law on February 8, 2006 and are helping students get increased access to financial aid as we speak. By focusing on the principles of fairness, accountability, affordability and quality, we can continue to reform federal student aid programs to both maximize the benefits for students and spend taxpayer dollars wisely. I look forward to the Majority changing their closed door policy and giving all Members of Congress an opportunity to put forth their ideas to develop comprehensive higher education reform this year. We must continue to improve our efforts to increase college access and affordability to help Americans achieve a better future for themselves and their families.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, over 90% of people with Medicare, that's 38 million Americans, get their prescription drugs through Medicare Part D. These seniors are satisfied with their coverage and are finally receiving the drugs they need at costs they can afford. Consistently, 80% of beneficiaries report they are satisfied with their current coverage and drug plans. Those include seniors known as dual-eligibles, the poorest seniors eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, because they are seeing more choices and paying less money for quality care. My constituent, Nancy Santheson of Roswell, New Mexico, was spending almost $800/month on one drug to treat osteoporosis. She had zero coverage the first year her doctor prescribed it. Once she signed up for her Medicare Part D plan, it went down to only $60/month. This drug is not listed on the Veterans' Administration's national formulary. Had Nancy been dependent on the price negotiations the VA administers and the Democrats have proposed, she would not have had coverage of this drug, a new treatment that has shown great promise in reversing bone loss. Democrats say they will fill in the donut-hole, a cost estimated to be $450 billion over 10 years, with the savings they claim will incur through government interference in price negotiations. Yet the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have stated that they predict government involvement in price negotiations will not lead to lower costs for taxpayers or seniors. Seniors want choice, not government controlled access to their vital prescriptions. The leverage needed to negotiate low prices is volume buying and the ability to walk away from a deal the government decides is too expensive. This means the government will have to walk away from a deal with a drug company, and seniors would not have access to those drugs. Negotiating low prices will take priority over getting the most quality, effective drugs in our seniors' medicine cabinets. But seniors are already getting negotiated discounts. Private insurance plans already have a strong incentive to negotiate low prices for seniors: they want to control their own costs and compete for new enrollees to choose their plan. Premiums for the drug basic benefit are offered at an average of $22/month for seniors in 2007, down from $23 in 2006. This is $15 less than the $37/month coverage premiums were originally projected to cost. In fact, Democrats wanted to set premiums on seniors at a static $35/month, $13 more than average beneficiaries will pay next year. This proves that competition is working and our seniors are receiving benefits cheaper than ever imagined. Democrats point to the Veterans' Administration as a model for this government price controlled plan. But the latest information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggests that almost 40% of veterans eligible for both VA and Medicare benefits choose to get their prescriptions through Medicare Part D, the plan with more choices. Time and again, veterans in my district have been frustrated that in order to receive the best benefits, they must get their drugs through an impersonal mail order program. In fact, 76% of veterans' prescriptions are distributed through mail order. And year after year efforts are made to encourage more veterans to get their prescriptions through mail order. Why put seniors in this position when we do not have to? Our seniors will face threats to their ability to purchase drugs from local pharmacies, just as veterans face, and may have to retrieve their drugs through an impersonal mail-order program, not their trusted pharmacist. Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve to have access to the drugs they need at the lowest costs possible. They are getting both now, and Democrats want to take that away. We must continue to fight for our seniors and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I fully support stem cell research and its potential to solve many of the world's most complex medical mysteries. Many scientists have concluded that certain types of stem cells, called pluripotent stem cells, may one day be used to develop treatments for debilitating diseases. Some of these types include cells derived from adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and finally, human embryos. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research began in 2001 when President Bush announced a policy that allowed researchers to destroy and conduct research on stem cell lines that had come from human embryos already destroyed prior to August 9, 2001. This policy did not encourage or offer incentives from the government to destroy human life for research. Yet the newly elected Democratic majority chose to bring a bill to the House floor today that forces taxpayers to encourage and fund the destruction of human life for embryonic stem cell research. This legislation also has no protections to ensure human embryos can not be cloned by researchers who receive this funding and access to destroyed human embryos. It is disheartening that the Democratic leadership wants to force all taxpayers to fund the destruction of human embryos for research, regardless of any moral and ethical concerns they may hold. Stem cell research is currently legal in the United States. In fact, nothing in any past federal legislation or policy would ban privately funded embryonic stem cell research. Yet private investors are reluctant to fund embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life and many have chosen to look for alternatives that offer better results. In this world, we are measured by our treatment of the most delicate and weak among us. And in the world of science, there are lines that must be drawn when the destruction of innocent human life is at stake.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and thank the colleagues across the aisle for this important debate. I think one of the things that should be brought to our attention is that the debate is not subject to amendment. We are not able to really consider and take action based on our considerations. We received a communication from Rebecca Dow, who is the founder and executive director of Apple Tree Educational Center, a nonprofit institution serving low-income/at-risk children in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. She stated that if a Federal or State minimum wage passes, the reimbursement for child care assistance is going to be so low that providers cannot continue providing service for low-income families. For programs like Apple Tree, it will mean closing. There are going to be unintended consequences. As a small business owner myself, I will tell you that we are not talking about the middle class working for minimum wage. I will tell you that we are not talking about people who are right in the midstream of the employment force. I will tell you that we are talking about giving jobs to people who are not and have not in the past been hirable. We brought one man in who was 40 years old, tattoos from one end to the other. He told me after working 6 months he had never had a job, a full-time job, in his whole life. Because we could bring him in at a lower level, we did not have to have productivity, he was allowed to learn on-the-job training. That gentleman is still employed at the company which my wife and I sold after we came here because we were able to give him an entry level wage at an entry level job without much demand for performance. In the last session, the last Congress, I voted to increase the minimum wage when the protections were there for small businesses. It is the small business people who get caught in the middle. We heard from our colleagues on the other side that many small businesses support minimum wage. If that is so, they have got the instrument to do something about it. They simply increase wages. But it is those small businesses, family owned businesses, where the decisions are made, on the living room sofa and the dining room table. Those are the people that you are going to put up against very hard economic circumstances, people like Rebecca Dow, who is going to have to close her institution that provides child care assistance for low-income families in an area that has no other provider for this sort of service. I think these are the things that we should be talking about and should be making allowances for, rather than rushing this bill to the floor in the manner that it is today. I appreciate your concern for the working families and for the businesses of the country. There are changes that we need to make.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, due to a doctor's appointment yesterday, I was unable to vote on H.R. 6314, a bill extending certain authorities to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out important services that assist America's veterans, and H.R. 864, the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to both H.R. 6314 and H.R. 864. Veterans who have fought to preserve the freedom and liberty enjoyed in this country deserve our relentless support and commitment. I will continue to show this commitment and pursue legislation such as my bill, The Healthy Vets Act, which would require the VA Secretary to contract with local doctors and hospitals on a case-by-case basis to provide medical services including primary care for those veterans who live far away from VA facilities. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position regarding H.R. 6314 and look forward to fostering efforts to improve the lives of veterans and their families.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce ``The R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way Recognition Act.'' I am introducing this legislation to advance the dialogue on an issue very important to my constituents and many other stakeholders, particularly in the western United States. R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way were originally granted by the 1866 Mining Law. However, in 1976 with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or FLPMA, the R.S. 2477 statute was repealed while grandfathering in existing claims. Since the passage the FLPMA and its repeal of R.S. 2477, a long-standing dispute regarding these grandfathered claims has persisted with the validity of these rights- of-way remaining in doubt. The purpose of my bill is to remove this cloud, once and for all, by declaring that State and local governments hold valid rights-of-way for all public roads that were documented on government maps and photographs at the time the FLPMA's grandfather clause was enacted. Everyone must clearly understand the scope of this legislation. It does not establish new claims or to provide a method by which any party may to build roads or improvements on claims not valid under FLPMA. Instead, this legislation intends to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of State and local governments to the rights-of-way that Congress intended they retain when passing FLPMA. Thus, any attempt to construe this legislation as an endeavor to create a system of superhighways through public lands is just plain wrong. This bill draws from the landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concerning the nature of an R.S. 2477 right of way, the meaning of unreserved federal land for R.S. 2477 purposes, and the principles governing the creation, nature, extent, use and maintenance of R.S. 2477 public roads. Supporters of this legislation should keep in mind that the bill I am introducing today is not the conclusive end this controversy. Today's introduction marks the start of a dialogue that I hope leads to a comprehensive solution and eventually a victory for all the stakeholders; a victory that protects our public lands, the rights of property owners, and the legitimate interests of Federal, State, and local governments. As we close the 109th Congress, let us each strive to work together to solve some of our most divisive public lands issues. Doing so requires engaging all parties through dialogue, creativity and persistence so that we may find common sense solutions that will meet the needs of the American public.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 6014, sponsored by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist in protecting and improving California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The delta is one of the most flood-prone areas in the world and is currently protected by a series of deteriorating 80-year earthen levees. After Hurricane Katrina, we all know the devastating effects of levee failures. The funding in this bill helps prevent future failures that could have far- reaching impacts on the entire State of California. It is simply an ounce of prevention for a pound of cure. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to improve California's Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta and water supply, as amended.

Mr. PEARCE

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1711, sponsored by Congresswoman Heather Wilson, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist the State of New Mexico in developing comprehensive water plans. New Mexico is experiencing record drought, and limited Federal assistance will help provide a water-use roadmap to overcome this and future droughts. This legislation specifically authorizes water resources mapping assistance in the State and allows for a comprehensive study of New Mexico's groundwater resources to assess the quantity and quality of the groundwater. Ultimately, the State and local entities will make the water-use decisions, but this bill helps provide the scientific data needed to make such decisions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1711) to provide assistance to the State of New Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. PEARCE

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5946 is an important tool for the United States to use to take action against those vessels that participate in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing practices. This legislation is vitally important for the health of the world's fishery resources and for the economic well-being of the U.S. high seas and domestic fishing fleets. The provisions in H.R. 5946 have already been passed the Senate by unanimous consent as a part of S. 2012. I will submit into the Record an exchange of letters with Chairman Thomas of the Committee on Ways and Means on the bill, and I thank him for his cooperation. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 5946. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, September 20, 2006. Hon. Richard W. Pombo, Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Pombo: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5946, the ``Stevens-Inouye International Fisheries Monitoring and Compliance Legacy Act of 2006,'' which was introduced on July 27, 2006. As you noted, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains jurisdiction over trade sanctions. H.R. 5946 includes text which falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this bill for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and agree to your offer to include this exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5160) to establish the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative, as amended.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3626) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, Utah, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized, as amended.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the author of the legislation. (Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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