Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3929, introduced by our distinguished colleague, Ken Calvert, authorizes Federal participation in a unique desalination research and development project in Southern California. Water consumers in that area of the State depend on imported water, and local efforts are being undertaken to develop nearby water supplies to reduce this dependence. Desalination and water recycling are some of the most important ways to create new local water supplies. This legislation provides limited Federal assistance to develop a unique subsurface ocean water collection system that can reduce desalination's cost and eliminate impacts on the environment. This project will not only help Southern California, but could also be a model for future desalination operations nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of H.R. 3929.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3418, introduced by Congressman Chet Edwards, authorizes Federal participation in a water reuse project in McLennan County, Texas. As central Texas cities experience rapid population growth and increased water demand, these communities are being proactive to better utilize their existing water supplies. This legislation is part of the effort to create new water supplies. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to my colleagues, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Udall, for their work on this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his comments and would note that in this past week I was able to tour a brand-new school in my district, the 2nd District of New Mexico, that is named after the Bataan March. The Bataan Death March occurred because the Nation forgot a small increment, a small group of soldiers, most of them in the New Mexico National Guard. Those people were taken captive, and now I find young school members, school kids today understanding the sacrifices that were made in that Bataan March back in World War II. I was in Vietnam when the Nation turned its back on the young soldiers of the Vietnam Era. I was there as we were spit on and cursed as we came back. Right now, most Vietnam veterans look for only one greeting, that is, welcome home. Even today, those words are enough to satisfy the Vietnam veteran to whom a nation turned its back. For the National Capital Planning Commission to turn its back on our veterans from Vietnam one more time is beyond belief. I urge passage of the bill.

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

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4882, introduced by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, along with Ranking Member Nick Rahall, Congresswoman Donna Christensen and myself, would locate the congressionally approved underground visitors center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on land adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial. Chairman Pombo felt compelled to take this unusual action in direct response to what he and I and others believe is the unreasonable bureaucracy choreographed by the National Capital Planning Commission. In November of 2003, the President signed the bill into law authorizing the creation of the visitors center. For 3\1/2\ years, this project has been under way with the National Park Service and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund having promptly met all requests for environmental and related information on the siting of the center. Yet, the commission demands more. Last November, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park Service gave the commission an extensive traffic analysis and met other information requests for a December 1 meeting at which the commission was expected to approve the site. However, without any notice to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the commission removed the visitors center from the meeting agenda and requested an extensive and unprecedented environmental analysis. There is no need for an additional analysis. In compliance with the Commemorative Works Act, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund commissioned a site selection study environmental analysis in June 2005 that recommended the most appropriate site, which is cited in H.R. 4882, as amended. Site A, as it is known, would not interfere or encroach on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial or other memorials and protects the open space and visual sight lines of the National Mall as required by the authorizing legislation. As a Vietnam veteran, I believe the visitors center is a long overdue complement to the most visited memorial in Washington, DC. While ``the Wall,'' as it has become known, certainly provides a visitor with an intense and solemn experience, it lacks personal context. Our brave soldier, sailors, and airmen desperately need something more, an experience that can help them heal while bringing closure. Their objectives were honorable and their sacrifice was exemplary. Yet their heroism remains unnoticed by younger generations. As today's participants in the military, young men and women, fight the war on terror, there is no better way to reassure them that America will honor their sacrifice, no matter what the Nation feels. The greatest thing that we can do to reassure them is to honor our Vietnam veterans. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, as amended. 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. 4882) to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as amended.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think your conversation is exactly correct, that right now in America, when I visit the troops in Iraq, the young men and women there ask me one question that I cannot answer, and that is, they ask how come my parents do not see the good things that I am doing on TV at night. How come they only see the bad things? Why is the press trying to mislead the public? So I appreciate your truth squad here where you begin to talk about the magnificent things that our troops are doing because, when I am there, our troops tell us that we are winning in the neighborhoods and the hearts of the Iraqi people and the hearts of people who distrusted us. I had three young men there from New Mexico. They call themselves the Three Amigos. They were telling me, when we were out on patrol the first days that we were there, and this was way back at the beginning of the war, they said that the people would peek out their window and open the window curtain and take a look out. The next week, maybe the window curtain was pulled open, the door still locked, the windows down. Gradually, the door opened up, and they would let their kids stand in the door and look at the Americans. Then they talked about the thing that I found in the Philippines when I was in the Air Force flying into Vietnam when you walk out among kids, and Asia and kids in other parts of the country, the thing they want to do is they want to touch the hair on your arm. So these young troops are saying, you know, the strangest things, the kids came out and the moms are holding them up to our face where the kids can see. They want to touch the hair on our arm. It was exactly the same thing I had experienced back in 1971, 1972, and 1973. It brings down to me the fact that these Iraqis had been told for 35 years that the Americans will kill you. The truth is Saddam Hussein would kill them. He was always telling them an untruth; and when the truth was known, then the Iraqi people began to settle down. I would say also that, in this country, if there is a big issue today, one we as a Nation face, it is truth. It is the understanding of what objective truth is. It is the understanding of who can tell us and who will tell us the truth. So I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to bring some truth to this floor because often we have got our friends who come and they talk about special interests and are pointing at the other team. The truth is, the biggest special interest group in this body are the trial lawyers, and the biggest special interest group in the other body are trial lawyers. They are the ones that are getting the most influence here. Yet our friends seem to forget that they are a special interest group and they are causing great outcomes in legislation. So I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to bring truth to the floor of the House of Representatives and especially as it regards our troops because our troops are doing magnificent things as they are in harm's way every day. We as a grateful Nation should always take the time to say thank you, not only to the troops but also to families of the troops, for being willing to be the last wedge between tyranny that originates in the Middle East and freedoms that we are trying to export from this country. I think that we owe all of our families and all of our troops a good round of thanks from a grateful Nation. I salute the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of Fort Fillmore, New Mexico in honor of First Lieutenant John Salopek, as celebrated in the biography by Gerald Carson, ``Big John', or 1Lt John Salopek, to whom Fort Fillmore is being dedicated today, was born on September 17, 1921 in Croatia. At age eight, he arrived in the United States, settling in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Salopek received a Reserve Officer's Training Corps (ROTC) commission in June 1944. He was assigned to a platoon leader position in 1st Platoon, Company G of the infamous 42nd ``Rainbow'' Division, 7th US Army. Salopek's unit arrived in Marseille, France in December, 1944. The unit fought in the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign near Gambshein, France. On January 5, 1944, Salopek's platoon was attacked by German panzers, and most were taken prisoner of war (POW) the next day. Salopek was taken to a headquarters command post of the elite Waffen-Schutztaffel (SS). Later, Salopek was transferred to Hammelburg Offizierlager XIIIB (Oflag) POW camp of 1,500 officers, to include the son of Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and the son-in-law of General Patton. On March 26, 1945, General Patton ordered Task Force Baum to Hammelburg to rescue the paws. Only 300 of the 1,500 were rescued, to include 1LT Salopek. Two days later, Task Force Baum was captured by Germans. Most were either killed or again taken POW. Salopek evaded capture and fled to a German farm house near Richenbuch, where he remained until American troops liberated the Hammelburg POW camp on April 5, 1945. The following year, 1LT Salopek, returned to his family's farm in Mesilla, New Mexico. Salopek's father left over 300 acres of pecan farms to John in the Las Cruces area. Salopek spent the remainder of his life working his land. 1LT Salopek was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze, and Purple Heart for action in the Ardenned-Alsace Campaign. He died on April 15, 2002.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 196) honoring the pilots of United States commercial air carriers who volunteer to participate in the Federal flight deck officer program.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 196.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 196 recognizes and applauds the volunteer pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. It is an opportunity to show our appreciation for those brave pilots who are committed to protecting Americans against another act of terrorism not only at huge personal risk but with no compensation or recognition. I appreciate Chairman Mica's leadership in establishing and supporting this program. I am proud to represent the district where the Federal flight deck officer training occurs. Chairman Mica visited this program with me last year. These are superb assets at Artesia, New Mexico, which include two 727s all lined up and allow real simulated training for the Federal flight deck officers. I also toured the facility with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff just in the last month. We should speak for a grateful Nation for the selfless contribution these pilots make to providing a critical layer of protection to the aircraft, passengers, and cargo from acts of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) control the remainder of my time and that he be allowed to yield time to other Members in consideration of this resolution.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to be in the Resources Committee when we had testimony from the union workers in the pulp wood industry and the timber industry in the Northeast. They were there saying that well-meaning individuals told them they could get jobs in tourism. That is what the answer is from the people who would obstruct good solid industries: you can get a job in the tourism industry. Those good workers came before the committee and said we want our jobs, the ones we grew up with and understand. They are good, clean jobs. The trees grow back, they are renewable; and yet there is a deaf ear by many in this country to the plight of working Americans. I hope that the gentleman's efforts are successful because our future, our economic future in this Nation depends on good policies coming from this body, good choices coming from this body; and I would encourage the gentleman to continue his efforts to have common sense prevail and have us drill for natural gas in the continental U.S. and off the Continental Shelf.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, there are people that are amazed that we can make the assertion that we are going to lose an industry. They do not think it is possible. I would simply refer them to the timber industry. In the timber industry, we used to have 22 saw mills in my district. New Mexico had 22. Now we have two. Both of those remain in my district, and they are struggling to say alive. In one forest alone, we are growing 50 million board feet of timber a year, and yet we cannot get the Forest Service to cut 12 million board feet. That would be enough to economically keep that mill running. We have given up the entire infrastructure of that industry, and we are in the process of giving up the entire infrastructure of our chemical industry and our potash industry. These are good jobs that are being outsourced, not outsourced because of greedy CEOs, but outsourced because of the policies of obstruction that many in this country are willing to push, and some of our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for bringing this important issue to the floor of the House. I understand the issue. My father worked in the oil fields. My father actually began life as a sharecropper in west Texas, and I was born in 1947. There was a drought in 1947 and 1948, and my father was a sharecropper on dry-land farming, which is peculiar to that particular area; and with no rain, literally they went broke. Mom and Dad picked up the three kids they had at that point, eased across the New Mexico line to where we had the oil fields. Actually, it is the Permian Basin that is there in west Texas and eastern New Mexico, and this is where Dad raised six children. I was able to get a college education. My brother was the first to get a college education, but all these things came because my father was working there. He was just a worker in the oil industry, and from my earliest days I have watched the oil industry drill in and out of the cycles of high and low prices. Frankly, I do not think that we have enough capacity, not enough oil wells really to drill in the United States right now to lower the price of oil that is at a historic high of about $70; but as the gentleman has pointed out adequately time and time again, the natural gas price is an internal price to the United States. Natural gas does not move back and forth between markets, and it is possible for us to drill enough to begin to lower that price of gas. That is why what we are going to see this winter is we are going to see our seniors on fixed incomes and low-income families paying an extraordinarily high price for their natural gas. Many people, and especially our friends on the other side of the aisle in this body, are pointing to the industry and saying they are price gouging. The truth is that it is a market price set by our policies for the last 20 or 30 years. Even today, the Governor of the State of New Mexico has brought suit to stop drilling for natural gas in New Mexico, and New Mexico is one of the largest producers of natural gas. You have people who claim to have good intentions; but at the bottom, they are obstructing the drilling of these wells which would help us to lower the price. The price of natural gas is simply an economic outcome of an increasing demand. The U.S. Government is requiring that we convert electrical producing plants, our utility plants that create electricity. They are converting those at the direction of the U.S. Government from coal to natural gas. That has increased the demand. On the other side, we have not increased the supply. So you have a demand and supply imbalance which creates a higher price. If the people who are bringing suit to stop the production of gas wells and the permitting of gas wells on public lands, if they were to drop those objections, we would begin to see more economic activity, more drilling of wells. That would increase the supply, the balance would come back, and the price would begin to moderate. But for some reason, we have people in this country who are willing to obstruct, even at the risk of losing major industries; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), my friend, has pointed out well that the chemical industries are among the first who feel this because they use a very large amount of natural gas in the production of their products. One of the other industries that experiences the great pressure that comes from the high natural gas price is farming and also the production of fertilizer. Our economy and our way of life in this country has two basic parameters that it depends on. Our way of life depends on two different things in our lives, that is, an affordable food supply and an affordable energy price. Affordable energy is the bedrock of many of our industries. Our economy is fueled by affordable energy, and so right now we have prices that are above $14. The price is up and down, but historically our economy and our way of life is built on $2 gas, and now it is $14. You just cannot experience those kinds of increases without experiencing the economic pressures that come along with it. We are going to find it both in the lowering of our economic base and status in the country, and also in our personal lives. So there is a twofold threat, but I will tell you that the second way we are going to find it is in increasing food costs. I was just talking to farmers in our area this past weekend, and they are telling me that they are getting three and four bales of cotton per acre; and yet because of the irrigating cost, the price is just the same. The net profit is the same as what they had experienced before. Now, exactly the same thing is happening with our food crops, and we are going to see the cost of food on the shelves begin to increase. So we are going to have a double effect on our families and especially those families with limited income; and still we have people, our friends on the other side of the aisle in this institution, who are willing to obstruct and say, no, you cannot drill here. You cannot drill in my backyard. You cannot drill off the Outer Continental Shelf. You cannot drill in ANWR. You cannot drill in Alaska. I am sorry, but when do we begin to recognize that we are paying the price for that obstructionist policy that they are willing to engage in? It is time for us to have some common sense and to recognize that the technology of drilling oil wells has changed tremendously in the past 30 years. These arguments that are directed at an industry that existed 30 years ago have been bypassed, and yet they still hold the arguments in place. We are able at this time in our history to drill one single well bore and come down to, say, 10,000 feet; and we can turn the bit and start moving sideways laterally and achieve drilling into areas that previously we could not do. When we begin to understand the new technologies, we begin to see that many of the complaints are dated into the past, and so we are paying a higher price of gas at the pump. We are paying more to heat our homes. We are at risk of losing industry, and we are going to pay more for our food because we have got people who are responding to the past practices. In Alaska, many times we have the observation that we cannot drill there because it will destroy the tundra. What we are doing in Alaska now is we build ice roads. We build those ice roads in the wintertime. We drill in the wintertime; and when spring comes, the ice thaws, the roads are gone, and all we have is the one pipe sticking up out of the ground. Actually, when people talk about the way that drilling is going to affect the wildlife, we find that the herd there is now five times larger than when we first laid that first Alaska pipeline from Alaska down to the southern 48. The objections are running the risk of destroying the economic base of this country. Right now we have people that are willing to come across the oceans to get to this country at any price because of the hope and the opportunity that exists here that does not exist in many other nations in the world. Here we have a group of people that are willing to obstruct and break that promise of hope and opportunity that draws people from around the world, that hope and opportunity that gives your children and my children, that gives your grandchildren and my grandchildren some promise for the future, and other things that cannot be explained. We are running the risk of giving that up. I see the gentleman has other comments. At closing time, I would have other comments, but I really appreciate the gentleman bringing this important conversation before the body tonight.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is exactly correct. Let me use some numbers to tell you about the way the situation exists. Today, we use about 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. The estimates are that by 2025 that we are going to need 30 trillion cubic feet. Now, we are able to have a supply that just about equals that annual consumption, but we do not have any large pockets. And, in truth, the amount of wells, the numbers of new leases have declined significantly in the past 7 or 8 years. So we really do need access to the dramatic deposits, and the Outer Continental Shelf. Keeping in mind that we use 22 trillion cubic feet, the Outer Continental Shelf has about 400 trillion cubic feet, the most dramatic source of natural gas that is available. I know that when my father worked for Humboldt back in the 1960s and 1970s, they were saying that oil in our particular town, and gas, would be gone by 1980. That seemed to be so far out in the future. And then the 1980s came and went; we were seeing those declines the gentleman was talking about. But in truth we are finding new stimulation techniques. But the stimulation techniques cannot keep up with the increasing demand. What we need is access to more sites with more gas. And it has been a disappointment that the regulatory agency that is in charge of this, the Department of the Interior, has not found ways to really encourage those leases. Right now, I do not think that the Department of the Interior requires any particular office to describe the amount of natural gas or oil that they produce. Now, that is curious because our entire economy is based on these things, and we do not even measure them. So I have made suggestions, and we still hope that they will be listened to, that we begin to hold these field offices of the Bureau of Land Management, the BLM offices, accountable for the amount of contribution they make to the national energy plan, the amount of contribution of oil and gas reserves they have available and that they are actually producing, and the number of wells where they are finding good, safe environmental ways to drill. Instead, what we are finding is that for a 3-month period we shut down all drilling because we have some prairie chicken that they say breeds in that season and the sound of the rotary rigs might interrupt the breeding process. Now, that is not what I know to be true about the typical breeding process. The sound of nothing tends to interrupt that, but maybe the male prairie chicken is particularly sensitive. But in truth we are finding reasons to justify actions that are tied to the past, and our entire economic future is at stake. I yield back to the gentleman if he has other observations.

Mr. PEARCE. There is one thing I would like to go back and touch on a bit, Madam Speaker. The gentleman pointed out adequately some of the objections to LNG, but the main objection that people unfamiliar with LNG are going to eventually raise, and I have LNG in the district, so I know what it takes to deliver LNG to a house. You put in a 500-gallon tank. This is just a steel tank, and you put it in either the back or the front yard. You have a truck come up and you offload that high pressure gas into these 500-gallon or 1,000-gallon tanks. Now, people try to hide the fact that they have an air-conditioning unit outside their house. They put landscaping around it, or they will berm up around it, or they will put bricks around it to where it looks like a piece of the house. But a 500-gallon or a 1,000-gallon tank is really going to be hard to plant a hedge around. And if you do that, you always have to have it serviced. If it runs out, it is like the gas in your car, when it runs out, then you no longer heat your house until you get that truck to come back out again. I remember spending winters in Arkansas. I was stationed at the Air Force Base there at Blytheville Air Force Base. I flew in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. But there in Blytheville, I had one of those 500-gallon tanks out by my house. And the one time we had like 20 straight days of ice storms, many people in that area were running out of gas and the trucks could not get there. Now, this is not the sort of dependable, affordable delivery mechanism that Americans are used to. They are used to natural gas that comes through the house in lines they do not see. They turn on the tap and the furnace is always running, day and night. It runs off a thermostat. So life will be significantly different if we decide that LNG is our solution to our natural gas problem. Again, many, many things are causing the price of natural gas to go up, but one of the things is the bureaucratic delay and restrictions to the approval of drilling new wells. When leases with access into known and proven reserves, and these are not leases that are in pristine areas where there has never been drilling before, these are leases in areas that have been drilled before. So there is no real objection that, listen, we are contaminating a new environment in a sensitive area. It is just that the agencies either have been directed or, for whatever reason, come up with reasons to delay, terminate or reduce access to the Federal lands that are available. This is all occurring during a time when we are seeing this skyrocketing price of natural gas, which is threatening the livelihood and the way we live our lives. So those elements are some that we need to be aware of. I would mention to my colleague that during the last 4-year average period we have seen a decrease of almost 30 percent of our ability to drill on public lands and Federal lands from the previous 8-year average. So we really do have some bureaucratic restrictions that are creating bottlenecks in the approval process to where we can go on and put a nice clean hole in the ground that goes down and taps into this gas reservoir. Gas wells are typically very clean producing. They do not have a pump jack that stands there and pumps up and down. They just have the center pipe coming out of the ground and then a series of valves on that, and then it goes straight to the pipeline. Usually it has to be refined in some small amount before it goes on to the consumer, but it is a safe, easy delivery mechanism. And why we have people who are willing to obstruct that has always been beyond me. I am not exactly certain how much time we have remaining, so I will yield back to the gentleman and will get a couple more thoughts ready.